John Douglas Ewart

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of its Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications, and the Region's failure to make a decision on a Regional Official Plan amendment, which sought to permit an illegal contractor's yard.

After repeatedly failing to comply with the Tribunal's Procedural Order, the appellant brought a last-minute motion to adjourn the hearing, claiming an inability to retain a land use planner.

The Town and Region brought cross-motions to dismiss the appeals without a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding it was a delay tactic to allow the illegal use to continue and to postpone sentencing for related provincial offences.

The Tribunal granted the cross-motions and dismissed the appeals, finding they were made in bad faith, for the purpose of delay, and disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds.

The applicant sought official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as an aggregate license, to permit the expansion of an existing quarry.

The municipality and local residents opposed the expansion, raising concerns about noise, air quality, blasting (specifically flyrock), traffic safety, and social impacts.

The Tribunal evaluated expert evidence and found that the proposed expansion, with its integrated mitigation and monitoring measures, would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal rejected the objectors' request for a fixed flyrock exclusion zone and found the applicant's proposed traffic safety protocols sufficient.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments and license were approved in principle.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and its neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments sought to change the designation of the subject lands from Commercial to High Density Residential to permit a 76-unit, 7-storey residential building.

The Tribunal heard extensive expert evidence on land-use planning, ecology, transportation, and engineering.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts and City staff, finding that the proposal represents an appropriate infill development that is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and has adequate regard for environmental and safety concerns.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal initiated a motion to determine whether to rescind a 2015 Interim Order that approved a zoning by-law amendment and directed the issuance of an aggregate licence, subject to the negotiation of a haul route agreement.

After nearly seven years of delays, changes in counsel, and inactivity by the applicant, the municipalities requested that the matter be dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had been given ample opportunities and time extensions but failed to resolve the haul route condition.

Consequently, the Tribunal rescinded the Interim Order and directed the Minister to refuse the licence.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The appellant sought to rezone a vacant waterfront lot to permit a dock and walkway as the principal use, allowing the appellant to access their backland parcel across the road by boat.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Official Plan and Development Permit By-law do not contemplate a dock as a principal use, but rather as an accessory use.

The Tribunal held that creating a standalone property with a dock as the principal use without tying it to a specific residential property would fail to control the intensity of use and did not represent good planning.

The Township of Minden Hills appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that resulted in the denial of a minor variance application due to a tie vote.

The applicants sought variances to permit the reconstruction of a dwelling, an extension to a waterfront deck, and the construction of a 1.5-storey garage on a waterfront property.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for an accessory building on the applicant's property.

The variances sought relief from minimum setback requirements from the EP Zone and top-of-bank.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, preferring the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the municipality that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with provincial policies, and maintained the intent of the official plans and zoning by-law.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law passed by the Township of North Kawartha.

The parties previously reached a settlement that was approved by the predecessor Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which required the Township to amend certain zoning schedules.

The appellants brought the matter back before the Ontario Land Tribunal, expressing concern that the Township had failed to act expeditiously in completing the required mapping of wetlands and waters.

The Tribunal directed the Township to follow a proposed Work Program approved by its Council to implement the settlement as expeditiously as possible.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a recreational dwelling, the applicants requested an award of costs against the appellants.

The applicants argued that the appellants failed to present expert evidence to support their environmental concerns.

The Ontario Land Tribunal denied the request, finding that the appellants' conduct in advancing the appeal without expert evidence did not meet the threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct required for a costs award under Rule 23.9.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by Fowler Construction Company Ltd. regarding the Township of Ramara's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry.

The order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, order of evidence, and filing deadlines for witness statements and expert reports.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for a 25-day video hearing regarding appeals by Fowler Construction Company Ltd. against the Township of Ramara's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The amendments are sought to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry area.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, the issues list, and the procedural requirements for the parties, including the exchange of expert witness statements and visual evidence.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment that would recognize a waterfront parcel and a separate main parcel as one lot for planning purposes, and permit certain accessory structures on the waterfront lot.

The Tribunal found that the two parcels were functionally separated by 1.5 km of public road and could not be considered one lot.

The Tribunal allowed a dock, stairs, and landings as principal uses on the waterfront lot to provide lake access, provided that on-site parking could be accommodated, but prohibited a boathouse and sundeck to limit the intensity of use and avoid the need for an on-site septic system.

The Moving Party sought to file a late appeal of its 2021 property assessment.

The Moving Party relocated its office and did not receive the notice of assessment until late summer or early fall 2021.

Upon receiving the final tax bill in late June 2021, the Moving Party filed a Request for Reconsideration Extension of Time Form within 30 days.

The Board found that filing the incorrect form still demonstrated an intention to appeal within the 30-day window required by Rule 26(b).

The motion for a late appeal was granted.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant following the municipality's failure to render a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a high-density mixed-use development.

The municipality indicated it did not intend to participate.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two neighbouring residents, approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a one-day video hearing.

The appellant appealed a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent application intended to facilitate the development of a long-term care facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and entered into multiple agreements.

The appellant withdrew its appeal against the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the parties jointly recommended a revised condition of consent.

Relying on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the consent satisfied all statutory criteria, allowed the consent appeal in part, and authorized the provisional consent subject to the amended condition.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the reconstruction of an in-water boathouse and an addition to a sleeping cabin.

The parties had reached a tentative settlement, but the Township Council did not endorse it.

Consequently, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits for June 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on a proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List for the upcoming two-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2160288 Ontario Inc. against the City of Peterborough's refusal to grant an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment for a high-density residential development.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a revised draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties to govern the upcoming 10-day hearing scheduled for January 2022.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit a second-storey guest accommodation addition to an existing boathouse.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed addition would have minimal visual and environmental impact, consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending site plan approval.

The applicants sought consent to sever a shoreline property on Lake Bernard to create a new lot and a retained lot.

The Central Almaguin Planning Board granted provisional consent, which was appealed by adjacent property owners.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal considered expert ecological and planning evidence demonstrating that the severance would not negatively impact the lake's water quality or sensitive Lake Trout habitat, particularly because the lots would be connected to municipal services, significantly reducing phosphorus loads.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, finding the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act.