Jonathan Kahn

The applicant appealed the failure of the Niagara Region and the City of Niagara Falls to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a mineral aggregate extraction operation.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties requested time to finalize the issues list and engage in Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 10-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Cambridge Aggregates Inc. against the Township of North Dumfries for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a new aggregate pit.

The Tribunal granted party status to the North Dumfries Conservation Alliance and participant status to a local resident.

A Procedural Order was approved, and an eight-day merit hearing was scheduled for October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Walker Aggregates Inc. against the Niagara Region and the City of Niagara Falls for failing to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a mineral aggregate extraction operation.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted Party status to two neighbouring landowners with residential development proposals, and granted Participant status to four local residents.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to address a forthcoming Aggregate Resources Act license application and the Procedural Order.

The applicants appealed the non-decision of the County of Wellington and Township of Puslinch regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to facilitate the expansion of a sand and gravel pit.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The Township of Puslinch brought a motion seeking an indefinite adjournment of the hearing of appeals regarding an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a gravel pit expansion.

The Township requested the adjournment until the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry decided whether to refer a related Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) licence application to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that an indefinite adjournment would cause substantial prejudice to the appellants and was not reasonable for the determination of the land use planning issues, which could be adjudicated independently of the ARA licence application.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an aggregate pit on prime agricultural land.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement endorsing the application.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence in land use planning and air quality, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and amended the Zoning By-law to permit the extraction operation subject to a holding symbol and rehabilitation requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2374868 Ontario Ltd. against the Township of Puslinch's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The amendment sought to permit a vacuum truck soil and aggregate transfer and processing facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals, directed revisions to the Joint Issues List to remove duplicative or non-jurisdictional wording, and scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits for July 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application sought to permit the transfer, storage, and processing of soil and aggregate materials from vacuum trucks for rehabilitation purposes.

The Tribunal deferred three participant status requests to allow counsel time to review them.

Due to the large number of anticipated expert witnesses and an unrefined issues list, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to scope the issues before setting a 15-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by St. Mary's Cement Inc. and Rosedale Securities Limited from the failure of the County of Wellington and Township of Puslinch to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a gravel pit expansion.

The County requested that the hearing on the merits be delayed until a related Aggregate Resources Act license application is referred to the Tribunal by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The Tribunal maintained the previously scheduled hearing dates but agreed that the Procedural Order and Issues List cannot be finalized until the license referral occurs, scheduling a further Case Management Conference for October 2023.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an aggregate pit.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Waterloo and participant status to a local resident and a conservation group.

The Tribunal also scheduled a five-day hearing and issued a procedural order on consent of the parties.

The Township of Tiny brought a motion under s. 34(31) of the Planning Act to bring into force the unappealed portions of its new comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 22-075.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the unappealed portions into effect and amending the by-law to permit a Mineral Aggregate Resources zone on specific lands in accordance with a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal also scheduled hearing dates for the remaining site-specific and section-specific appeals, including those related to short-term rentals, boathouses, and specific zoning designations.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tiny's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and referred an application for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, to permit the expansion of an existing gravel pit.

The parties reached a settlement reducing the extraction area and implementing mitigation measures.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and had regard to the required matters under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The appeals were allowed, the planning instruments were approved, and the Minister was directed to issue the licence.

In a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) issued to an aggregate pit operator, the Tribunal determined the final Issues List.

The appellants sought to include issues relating to aggregate washing, settlement ponds, and groundwater quality impacts from those processes.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider aggregate washing and related sewage works in a PTTW appeal, as those matters are governed by a separate Environmental Compliance Approval process under section 53 of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The Tribunal struck or amended the disputed issues to ensure they strictly related to the taking of water, rather than its subsequent treatment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Permit to Take Water issued for aggregate washing at the Teedon Pit.

The parties could not agree on a joint Issues List, with the Director objecting to issues relating to sewage works and the characterization of water resources.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange written positions to finalize the Issues List and declined to schedule the hearing until the Procedural Order and Issues List are resolved.

The appellant in an environmental appeal regarding a wind power project requested a summons for a Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry specialist to testify about the endangered species permitting process.

The proposed witness and the Director applied to cancel the summons.

The Tribunal granted the request to issue the summons and dismissed the application to cancel it, finding the proposed evidence relevant and necessary to the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) for a wind power project, arguing it would cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, or the natural environment, specifically focusing on Barn Owls and Bald Eagles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the appellant failed to meet the onus of proving that the project would cause such harm.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the project was unlikely to result in bird strikes or significant habitat displacement, and confirmed the Director's decision to issue the REA.