John George Pappas

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the municipality's application for an order to demolish above-ground construction on a contaminated property.

The appellants had proceeded with above-grade construction without a full building permit, having failed to obtain the required Record of Site Condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings and concluding that the demolition order was a proper exercise of discretion to enforce compliance with the Building Code Act.

The City of Brampton brought a motion for directions seeking approval of modifications to its new Official Plan to resolve multiple appeals.

The Tribunal found that the proposed modifications and unmodified policies had regard for matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Greenbelt Plan and the Region of Peel Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion, approving the modifications and unmodified policies without prejudice to the remaining outstanding appeals.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development with 2,009 units.

The central issues were whether the property's location within a Future Major Transit Station Area conferred development rights, the appropriateness of the proposed height and density, and transportation impacts.

The Tribunal found that the Provincial Planning Statement does not distinguish between planned and future MTSAs, thereby supporting the proposed intensification.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, concluding the proposal represents good land use planning, provides appropriate transition, and that transportation impacts are acceptable subject to holding provisions.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis.

The plaintiff, a municipal councillor, brought an action for defamation against a ratepayer and misfeasance in public office against the city's election compliance audit committee after the committee ordered a compliance audit of his campaign finances.

The defendants brought motions to dismiss the action.

The court granted the ratepayer's anti-SLAPP motion, finding her expressions related to a matter of public interest and were protected by qualified and absolute privilege.

The court also dismissed the action against the committee, finding it was immune from civil liability as a quasi-judicial body and the action was an abuse of process.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay full indemnity costs to the ratepayer and elevated costs to the city, and his motion to have his former counsel personally pay the costs was dismissed.

The Town of Ajax sought an order requiring the respondents to demolish and remove above-grade construction carried out without a building permit at 599 Kingston Road West, Ajax.

The respondents acknowledged the unpermitted construction but resisted demolition, arguing they should be allowed to continue obtaining the requisite Record of Site Condition (RSC).

The property had a history of soil contamination from its prior use as an automotive facility.

The respondents had entered into a Conditional Building Permit Agreement allowing only below-grade work pending RSC approval, but proceeded to construct above-grade elements without authorization.

Despite multiple warnings, stop work orders, and a mandatory injunction, construction continued.

The court found the respondents' conduct was a calculated decision by an experienced developer to circumvent regulatory requirements and ordered demolition as the only appropriate remedy to enforce building code compliance and protect public safety.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not provide a costs outline.

This decision concerns an appeal under section 88.33(9) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, regarding the City of Ottawa Elections Compliance Audit Committee's refusal to order a compliance audit of a candidate's financial statement.

The court found that even a minor but substantive error in a candidate's Form 4 financial statement is sufficient to require an audit, and that the Committee erred in not ordering one.

The court ordered the Committee to appoint an auditor and clarified that the threshold for ordering an audit is low, focusing on transparency and accurate reporting rather than the magnitude of the error.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day merit hearing and directed the parties to submit a final procedural order and issues list.

This is an appeal of a decision by the Joint Compliance Audit Committee for the Town of Oakville, which authorized a compliance audit of a municipal councillor's campaign finances.

The appellant argued that the applicant for the audit lacked standing because they were not an elector of the specific ward in which the councillor ran.

The court, applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation and the presumption of consistent expression, found that the relevant statutory provision (s. 88.33(1) of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996) must be read in conjunction with s. 19(7) of the same Act, which limits an elector's voting entitlement to their ward of residence in ward-divided municipalities.

Consequently, the court held that only an elector residing in the specific ward has standing to request a compliance audit for a candidate in that ward.

The Committee's decision to order the audit was set aside due to the applicant's lack of standing.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct typographical errors in a decision issued on October 16, 2024.

The amendments included replacing an attachment, correcting the spelling of 'Brampton', and correcting the word 'sized' to 'seized'.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 3300 Rutherford Developments Inc. for the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, noted ongoing without-prejudice discussions between the parties, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for January 16, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 16 appeals against the newly adopted 2023 City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to five requesting entities, including conservation authorities and railway companies, finding they had a direct interest.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals with a related Major Transit Station Area case to a subsequent joint CMC, and established a schedule for the appellants to provide modification letters to the City.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding three related appeals concerning commercial and residential developments in the City of Owen Sound.

The appeals involved two zoning by-law amendments to permit mixed-use and commercial buildings, including a grocery store, and a consent application for an access easement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposals consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement agreements.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion at a Case Management Conference seeking to resolve several site-specific appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved site-specific amendments for properties owned by Dufferin Vistas Ltd., Condor Properties Ltd., and Armland Management Inc. The Tribunal also provided directions for other appeals to be considered at future Case Management Conferences and acknowledged the withdrawal of certain appeals.

The applicant appealed the failure of the municipalities to make a decision on zoning by-law and official plan amendment applications for a proposed residential and mixed-use subdivision.

The municipalities brought a motion to dismiss the appeals.

At the second case management conference, the Tribunal adjourned the motion to dismiss to a further hearing date to allow for updates on legislative changes and further submissions.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered appeals by Cytec Canada Inc. and 2610832 Ontario Inc. regarding the City of Niagara Falls' By-law 2023-078 and Official Plan Amendment 147, which relate to the conversion of employment lands.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together sequentially in a three-phase hearing and scheduled dates for potential motions and the merits hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1685078 Ontario Inc. due to the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Caledon Residences Inc. and participant status to an adjacent property owner on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties time to continue settlement discussions.

The appellant, a municipal councillor and later mayor, appealed a decision finding he contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by attempting to influence the location of a municipal project near his commercial property.

The application judge ordered his removal from office and a two-year disqualification.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction, the finding of a pecuniary interest, the admission of expert evidence, the penalty, and the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable errors in the application judge's objective assessment of the conflict, her reliance on the expert valuation report, or her discretionary decisions on penalty and costs.

This was a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the municipality's approval of zoning by-law amendments and a consent application for a commercial and residential development.

The Tribunal scheduled separate consecutive video hearings for the three related appeals and directed the parties to submit draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists.

The City of Vaughan and Promenade Limited Partnership brought motions for the approval of nine settlements regarding appeals of the City's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Transition By-law 039-2022.

The settlements proposed site-specific amendments to recognize previous zoning approvals and facilitate mixed-use, residential, and commercial developments.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments had regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the York Region Official Plan, and the Vaughan Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the proposed zoning by-law amendments.