John Douglas Ewart

The applicants sought to quash two municipal by-laws (2020.16 and 2020.57) enacted by the Township of Ramara concerning shorewall construction and maintenance in Lagoon City.

The applicants argued the by-laws were ultra vires, contrary to provincial statute (the Mara Act), and enacted in bad faith, primarily due to mandatory aesthetic concrete requirements that increased costs and the transfer of appeal powers from the Lagoon City Parks & Waterway Commission to the Township.

The court found the by-laws illegal as they were inconsistent with the Mara Act by removing cost considerations and appeal rights, and were enacted for a collateral purpose (imposing a concrete aesthetic and circumventing existing permit applications).

The court also found sufficient indicia of bad faith, including collusion, interference with municipal officers, and lack of proper public notice.

The by-laws were quashed, and the Township was ordered to grant the applicants' permit applications under the previous by-law.

The parties attended a Case Management Conference seeking directions on the implementation of a settlement previously approved by the Tribunal concerning a Community Planning Permit By-law.

The Tribunal determined a Motion for Directions was necessary and scheduled a one-day video hearing for January 22, 2025.

The Township of Muskoka Lakes brought a motion to dismiss a third-party appeal of its new Official Plan by Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association, arguing the appeal was deemed dismissed under the transition provisions of Bill 185 (Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024).

The Tribunal found that while Our Muskoka did not meet the definition of a 'specified person' under the Planning Act, its appeal remained valid under the transition exception in s. 17(36.0.2)(b) because it was appealing the same decision (the approval of the Official Plan) as other valid appellants.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed, allowing the appeal to continue.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment to permit a quarry operation.

At the commencement of the hearing, a party brought a last-minute motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the ownership of the proposed haul route was in dispute and the subject of a newly commenced Superior Court action.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeal due to the motion's late service but found it could not proceed with the hearing.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter, noting that proceeding would require determining private property rights outside its jurisdiction, could result in a moot order, and might contradict a previous Divisional Court ruling regarding the feasibility of the haul route.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 32-unit townhouse development.

The municipality argued the development did not support intensification targets and lacked legal road access.

The Tribunal found the road access issue was resolved and that the development conformed to the density and intensification targets of the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and approving the draft plan of subdivision in principle, subject to revised conditions.

The Township appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit residential development on a property partially zoned Hazard Land.

The applicant argued that the Hazard Land designation was a mapping error and could be corrected as a 'technical revision' under the Zoning By-law without a formal amendment.

The Tribunal found that while the evidence showed no actual hazard existed on the land, the required boundary adjustment was not a mere technical revision and would change the permitted uses on the property.

Therefore, a Zoning By-law Amendment was required, and the minor variance application failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals/groups.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to determine the validity of one of the appeals in light of Bill 185.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing until the issues list is finalized, and directed the parties to submit a finalized issues list and draft procedural order prior to the next Case Management Conference.

The appellants sought to demonstrate compliance with a previous Tribunal order requiring them to show that a proposed parking area on their property complied with the Zoning By-law, apart from specific relief granted.

The Tribunal found that the survey provided by the appellants was inadequate as it was an overlay created by a draftsman rather than a professional survey.

The Town and added parties requested the appeal be dismissed.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the appeal immediately, granting the appellants a final opportunity to provide a professional survey by a set deadline, failing which a motion to dismiss would likely be brought.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent applications to permit the severance of a rural property into three residential lots.

The central issue was whether the proposed lots could be adequately serviced by private water cisterns, given the lack of municipal water and inadequate groundwater for wells.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding that cisterns are a viable and common water source in the area and that the proposed intensification is compatible with the surrounding rural character.

The appeals were allowed and the applications approved subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law.

The Tribunal ordered the appellants to provide a new survey demonstrating that their proposed parking area complies with the zoning by-law, apart from previously granted relief.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of rental cabins and an accessory dwelling on a property formerly used as a fishing resort.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted a 'new development' or a 'redevelopment' under the County Official Plan, which prohibits new development on private roads.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was a new development, as the previous use ceased in the 1980s and all structures would be new.

Consequently, the proposed development on a private road did not conform to the County Official Plan, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by JRB Williams Enterprises Inc. against the Municipality of Brighton's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a 32-unit residential development.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming three-day video hearing scheduled for September 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a yacht club and four individuals on consent.

The parties agreed to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List by June 14, 2024, and a three-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on September 25, 2024.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan, several community groups and individuals requested party or participant status.

Applying the Oakville Factors and the requirements of the Planning Act, the Tribunal granted party status to four cottage and stakeholder associations, finding their involvement would assist in the effective adjudication of the issues without causing undue prejudice.

The Tribunal denied party status to two individuals, finding their concerns were either site-specific or better suited for participant status, and granted participant status to one of them.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the municipality's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment.

The parties disputed the validity of the OPA appeal and requested a motion date to determine if prior submissions fulfilled the statutory requirements under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day motion and approved the draft Procedural Order to govern the exchange of documents.

Trent Lakes Concerned Citizens (TLCC) brought a motion under s. 34(25) of the Planning Act to dismiss an appeal by Dewdney Mountain Farms Limited (DMF) regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a proposed quarry.

TLCC argued that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because the proposed haul route included a 'forced road' that could not be widened to accommodate necessary noise mitigation measures.

The Tribunal found that the notice of appeal disclosed genuine and legitimate planning reasons.

The Tribunal concluded that the evidence regarding the road's status, width, and potential for modification required full consideration at a hearing on the merits, and therefore dismissed the motion.

The moving party, R.W. Tomlinson Limited, sought an order for costs against the Town of Greater Napanee and Keep Napanee Great following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for an asphalt plant.

Tomlinson alleged that the respondents acted unreasonably by pursuing an appeal with no reasonable prospect of success and raising irrelevant evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by the appellant against the Township's Community Planning Permit By-law.

The parties reached an agreement resolving 19 of the 27 issues, with the remaining 8 addressed through modifications to the By-law.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended By-law consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals by the appellants concerning the respondent's Community Planning Permit By-law, Development Permit By-law, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments and redline revisions represented good planning and were consistent with the applicable planning regime.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amended planning instruments and delegating final approval authority to the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The appellant appealed the refusal of an application for consent to sever a property to create a new rural lot containing an existing sleeping cabin.

The subject property is located on Mountain Lake, which is designated as an at-capacity lake trout lake.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance would create a backlot in contravention of the Township's Official Plan policies.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the severance did not conform to the Township and County Official Plans and was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the protection of sensitive water features.

The appeal was dismissed.