John Douglas Ewart

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent application, the Tribunal found the City's public notice to be defective.

On consent of the parties, who were engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals, abridged the time for service of a new notice, and scheduled a new Case Management Conference.

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

The parties indicated a tentative settlement was pending Township Council approval.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner and scheduled a further one-day video hearing to consider the anticipated settlement.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Earls Road Development Inc. from the failure of the District Municipality of Muskoka to make a decision on a plan of subdivision application, and the failure of the Town of Huntsville to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The Tribunal directed the parties to further refine the Issues List and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

A 15-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on August 8, 2022.

The applicant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a medium-density residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to an adjacent property owner.

The City indicated it would not take a position but would attend for information.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the Township of Minden Hills Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances for an adjacent waterfront property.

The applicant sought variances to permit increased lot coverage, reduced setbacks, and an expansion of an existing dwelling to construct a carport and an addition.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Roland Rom Colthoff against the Municipality of Trent Lakes' refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment sought to permit a second-storey addition to a boathouse.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order, finalized the issues list, and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

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

At the second Case Management Conference, the applicant requested a 15-day hearing.

The Tribunal found the request premature as a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List had not yet been finalized or reviewed by the municipalities' counsel.

The Tribunal directed counsel to review the draft order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural details before setting hearing dates.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's denial of a minor variance application.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions and requested a two-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for January 18, 2022, with the possibility of converting it to a settlement hearing if an agreement is reached.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality'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 sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence for a 25-day video hearing scheduled to commence in February 2022.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 27-hectare gravel pit.

The applicant also applied for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, which was referred to the Tribunal due to outstanding objections.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert evidence on land use planning, hydrogeology, agrology, and traffic engineering, which demonstrated that the proposed aggregate extraction operation is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to local official plans, and will not have adverse impacts on groundwater, natural heritage features, or traffic safety.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approved the planning instruments, and directed the Minister to issue the aggregate licence.

The applicant requested an extension of time to satisfy a conditional prerequisite regarding a haul route agreement for an aggregate licence and zoning by-law amendment.

The Township of Ryerson opposed the extension and requested the matter be dismissed, while the Township of Armour did not object to an extension to the end of 2021.

The Tribunal granted the extension to December 21, 2021, finding the request reasonable, and ordered that if the condition is not met by that date, a motion will be initiated to finally determine the application.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their minor variance application by the Township's Committee of Adjustment.

At a status hearing, the parties requested a Case Management Conference (CMC) to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a CMC for July 23, 2021, by video hearing, with the option to convert it to a settlement hearing if an agreement is reached.

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

The applications seek to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for July 2021 and a 25-day hearing for February 2022.

The defendants brought motions to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim under rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs, a home builder and its principal, alleged various torts and statutory breaches against Tarion Warranty Corporation, several municipalities, CTV News, and a public health authority, claiming hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The court found the 40-page statement of claim to be unwieldy, repetitive, and deficient in pleading the necessary material facts for the alleged causes of action.

The court struck the statement of claim in its entirety, dismissing claims based on criminal statutes, the Competition Act, the Security of Information Act, intentional interference with economic relations, discrimination, and harassment without leave to amend.

However, the court granted the plaintiffs leave to move for an order permitting them to deliver a fresh statement of claim restricted to specific causes of action, including injurious falsehood, inducing breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and negligence, provided they can properly plead the required material facts.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their remaining claims for damages arising from the respondent municipality's enactment of a fill permit by-law and its unsuccessful prosecution of the appellants for breach of that by-law.

The appellants claimed malicious prosecution, misfeasance and abuse of public office, and damages from the invalid fee provisions.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issues requiring trial on any of the claims.

The respondent had reasonable and probable cause to initiate and continue the prosecution, and there was no evidence of bad faith or unlawful conduct in enacting the by-law.

The plaintiff, a 43-year-old grader operator with 15 years of service, moved for summary judgment on a wrongful dismissal claim against the Township.

The court determined a reasonable notice period of 15 months, rejecting the defendant's argument of inadequate mitigation efforts due to insufficient evidence.

The plaintiff's claim for general damages for bad faith dismissal was dismissed, as the Township's failure to continue benefits was not deemed bad faith, and an employee's defamatory statement was outside the scope of employment and lacked proven reputational harm.

Damages were calculated for lost wages, overtime, benefits, and pension, but not for lost vacation pay.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that they were public interest litigants.

Finding that the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated claims impugned the professional integrity of the defendant and its employees, the court awarded the defendant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $65,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant township disqualified the respondent's tender for failing to include the company name and return address on the outside of the sealed envelope, as required by the tender process.

The respondent sued for breach of contract.

The trial judge found the respondent's tender was in substantial compliance with tender requirements and that the omission was a mere irregularity.

The trial judge awarded damages representing the respondent's lost profit, finding it had submitted the lowest bid and would have been awarded the contract.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, dismissing the appeal and awarding costs to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the municipality, which included claims of malicious prosecution, misfeasance/abuse of public office, and damages related to the municipality's Fill By-Law.

The municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial for any of the plaintiffs' claims.

Specifically, the court found that the municipality had reasonable and probable cause to initiate and continue Provincial Offences Act proceedings, did not act with malice, and did not act in bad faith in enacting or enforcing the Fill By-Law, including its fee provisions (which were previously found ultra vires but did not give rise to damages due to the plaintiffs' failure to complete permit applications).

The appellant, a farm property owner, sought to terminate a three-year farm lease with the respondents after the first crop season, claiming the respondents failed to provide chemical fertilizer application rates in the form she contended was required by the lease.

The trial judge found the appellant was not entitled to terminate the lease and awarded the respondents damages of $64,051.02 for lost profits from the 2013 and 2014 crop seasons.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision, finding that the lease did not contain a provision permitting early termination for this alleged breach, and that the respondents' handwritten disclosure of application rates was adequate performance.