John Goudy

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions to settle several appeals regarding site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment 59.

The settlements proposed expanding settlement area boundaries and converting employment lands to residential and commercial uses.

Sifton Properties Limited contested the settlements, arguing that a quantitative land needs assessment was required under the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 prior to approval.

The Tribunal found that the PPS 2024 removed the requirement for a municipal comprehensive review for boundary expansions, allowing for incremental expansions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and supportive of providing local housing options.

The appellants appealed the denial of a minor variance and the refusal of a development permit to replace an existing deck with a larger, engineered deck located at a 0m setback within a dynamic beach hazard area on Lake Huron.

The appellants argued that existing timber cribs mitigated the dynamic beach processes, making the development safe.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, or local planning policies, which strictly prohibit new development in dynamic beach hazard areas regardless of existing shoreline protection.

The appellants appealed the denial of a minor variance by the Municipality of Lambton Shores and the refusal of a development permit by the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority regarding the replacement of a deck on a shoreline property.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the two appeals be heard together and issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates and procedural requirements.

The applicants brought a motion for costs in the amount of $35,000 against the appellants following a merit hearing regarding a development permit application.

The applicants alleged the appellants' conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by religious discrimination.

The Tribunal found the motion completely lacking in substance and merit, noting no evidence of discrimination and that the appellants' case, though unsuccessful, was not unreasonable or devoid of merit.

The motion for costs was denied.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approving a development permit to recognize the existing use of a property as a retreat centre.

The appellants argued that the retreat use was not a permitted use and did not qualify as an 'existing use' under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Tribunal found that while the retreat use was not a listed permitted use, it qualified as an existing use because it was legally established prior to June 12, 1985, and had continued without interruption, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Commission's decision to issue the development permit.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Bartels Environmental Services Inc. against the Municipality of West Perth.

The appeals relate to a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan application to permit a biosolid storage facility on the subject property.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to grant a development permit.

The parties were unable to reach a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence on October 21, 2024, and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal, acting as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office, held Case Management Conferences regarding appeals of a development permit granted by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The parties discussed narrowing issues and possible settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 17, 2024, to determine the pathway forward.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a development permit approval, the Hearing Office finalized the Issues List, finding that the Appellants' proposed issues regarding conformity with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Niagara Escarpment Plan were relevant.

The Hearing Office declined to change the status of two Appellants who appeared via an agent, and declined to dismiss another Appellant's appeal for not calling witnesses.

Following the CMC, the Applicants indicated their intention to withdraw their development permit application, prompting the scheduling of a further CMC to determine the next steps.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the continued use of activities on the subject lands, including short-term accommodations and events.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, discussed the draft Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and set hearing dates.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning bylaw amendment and site plan application to permit a biosolid storage facility.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to the abutting property owners.

The parties requested and were granted a six-month adjournment to continue without-prejudice discussions, with a second Case Management Conference scheduled for January 2024.

The appellants appealed their Outlet Liability assessment under the Drainage Act for the Komoka Drainage Works.

They argued the drainage works should be funded entirely by the municipality's Stormwater Management levy or that their assessment should be reduced due to an inappropriate equivalent factor applied to their agricultural land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' properties were not in the Settlement area and did not pay into the Stormwater levy.

The Tribunal also found the engineer's use of a 1.0 factor for agricultural lands was fair and reasonable, and that the assessment was calculated correctly using the modified Todgham method.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County of Perth's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 193, which sought to allow the creation of five non-farm residential lots in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that the amendment was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as the existing dwellings were not rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused to approve the amendment.

The applicant brought a motion to have her name redacted from a previously issued Condominium Authority Tribunal decision, citing concerns about privacy, potential abuse, and a lack of accommodation during the hearing.

The respondent condominium corporation opposed the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, applying the open court principle and finding that the applicant failed to provide evidence demonstrating that anonymization was necessary to protect important interests, such as a reasonable apprehension of violence.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, applied to the Condominium Authority Tribunal for unredacted copies of the AGM sign-in sheet, ballots, and proxies.

The respondent condominium corporation agreed to provide the records but maintained it was required by the Condominium Act, 1998 to redact information identifying other owners or units.

The Tribunal held that the corporation did not have discretion to provide unredacted records and directed the corporation to provide the redacted records upon payment of a reasonable production fee of $102.15.

No costs or penalties were awarded.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility project.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement that did not alter the approval.

The appellant withdrew the appeal on consent of all parties.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without costs pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered several motions.

The Tribunal granted requests for party, participant, and presenter status, and granted the Appellant's consent motions for a short adjournment and to allow two expert witnesses to testify by videoconference.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's request for a lengthier adjournment to gather additional evidence, finding it would jeopardize the statutory six-month deadline without meeting the necessity test.

The Tribunal also modified the Appellant's proposed issues list to clarify that the appeal is limited to concerns about contamination from substances related to the radionuclide decay chain, rather than general heavy metal contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal issued a procedural order following a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for the North Kent Wind 1 Project.

The Tribunal granted participant, presenter, and party status to various individuals and the Municipality of Chatham-Kent, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's requests for an extension to serve disclosure, to have two witnesses testify by videoconference, and for a short adjournment of the hearing start date.

The scope of the appeal was defined to include both serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.