John Douglas Ewart

The applicant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a high-density mixed-use development on a former industrial site.

The delay was due to pending floodplain modelling by the conservation authority.

Prior to the hearing, the conservation authority confirmed the site could be safely developed, leading the parties to reach a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and allowed the appeal to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new waterfront commercial use (tourist establishment/resort) on Kashagawigamog Lake.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment to permit a quarry.

The parties advised they intend to call expert witnesses and are completing studies.

The Tribunal determined a full Procedural Order was not required but directed the parties to confer on document exchange and hearing length.

A second CMC was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the Town of Huntsville's new Community Planning Permit By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered uncontested expert planning evidence supporting site-specific amendments to the by-law for the appellant's waterfront landing and tourist resort properties.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Community Planning Permit By-law passed by the Township of Lake of Bays.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a third CMC and directed the parties to either present a settlement or provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance of the next hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage business on an agricultural property.

The applicant argued the business qualified as an on-farm diversified use (OFDU).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed trailer sales could operate independently of the farming operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found the proposed commercial highway activity was not appropriate for the rural road.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the retail sale and storage of docks on the subject properties as an accessory use to an existing commercial property.

The appellant argued the use was compatible with the surrounding area and could be regulated through site plan control.

The municipality argued the outdoor storage use was out of character for the central area and did not conform to the Official Plan or the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal favoured the municipality's planning evidence, finding the proposed amendment did not meet the legislative tests, and dismissed the appeal.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit parcels of land to be considered as one lot and identify shoreline activity areas.

The Tribunal confirmed that all six owners of the subject property had consented to the appeal proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a one-day hearing of the merits.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-Law to permit parcels of land to be considered as one lot for planning purposes and to identify shoreline activity areas.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal conferred participant status to a local resident on consent.

The parties jointly requested Tribunal-led mediation, which the Tribunal facilitated.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to update on mediation results and address outstanding issues, including clarification of the titled ownership of the subject property.

The plaintiff mortgage brokerage brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant and its CEO for unpaid brokerage fees.

The CEO had fraudulently misrepresented to the plaintiff that the real estate agents on the sale of the property had agreed to reduce their commission by 50%, inducing the plaintiff to discharge its mortgage and defer its fees.

The court found the CEO personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and ordered both defendants to pay the full $350,000 fee plus substantial indemnity costs.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Glencedar Inc. against the Township of Minden Hills' refusal of Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals/organizations.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order or settlement documents prior to the next hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a minor variance application.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were engaged in settlement discussions and promised to provide an update.

After failing to do so in a timely manner, the Tribunal directed the parties to inform it by May 15, 2023, regarding the scheduling of either a hearing or a settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Township of Nipissing zoning by-law amendment that permits travel trailers on certain properties with minimum setbacks.

The Tribunal identified the parties and participants, scheduled a two-day video hearing, and directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

A subsequent correction notice was issued to fix a participant's name.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a six-unit residential dwelling within an existing former motel building on a shoreline property.

The property was zoned Shoreline Residential, which permits only single detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found that the proposed multiple-unit residential use on rural lands outside a settlement area was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Township's planner, concluding that the proposal did not conform to the 'limited residential' policies of the County Official Plan or the waterfront policies of the Township Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant concerning the City of Peterborough's non-decision on a site-specific zoning by-law amendment application.

The parties reported progress on outstanding issues, including safe access to the site.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing and issued procedural directions for the submission of an issues list, witness lists, and a joint book of documents.

The appellant appealed the municipality's decision to approve a consent and zoning by-law amendment to permit a reduced lot frontage for a severed lot.

The consent appeal was dismissed due to the appellant lacking standing under Bill 23.

At a settlement hearing for the zoning appeal, the tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which removed a duplex as a permitted use, was consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order for a Phase 2 hearing regarding a proposed plan of subdivision and related amendments for Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal removed certain issues that attempted to re-argue matters decided in Phase 1, as well as improperly formulated issues from a self-represented party.

The Phase 2 hearing was scheduled for seven days by video hearing.

The appellants appealed the Town of Huntsville's new Community Planning Permit By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence supporting site-specific modifications for two golf course properties.

The Tribunal found the modifications conformed to the local Official Plans and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal approved the modifications and ordered the balance of the By-law into force, save for the lands of the remaining appellant.

The applicant appealed the failure of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Town of Huntsville to make decisions on a proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The proposal sought to permit a residential development of 782 units.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage operation as an on-farm diversified use.

In this case management conference, the Tribunal granted party status to two neighbours and participant status to eleven individuals, finalized the issues list, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.