Jonathan Minnes

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered appeals regarding an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law for the Grimsby Beach Secondary Plan Area.

The Tribunal consolidated the comprehensive appeals with site-specific appeals for minor variance and site plan applications for the appellants' property.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal approved a partial withdrawal of the comprehensive appeals, allowing the planning instruments to come into effect for the balance of the Town while preserving the appellants' site-specific appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the arbitration of a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act between the claimants and the Region of Waterloo.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of documents, examinations for discovery, mediation, expert meetings, and the filing of witness statements leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to begin on November 20, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79, which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to Timberworx Custom Homes Inc. and provisional party status to Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues Lists, and an eight-week merit hearing was scheduled to commence in January 2024.

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that resolved concerns regarding land use compatibility with a nearby poultry processing facility and the preservation of a heritage farmhouse.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed development, with an agreed 150-metre separation distance and warning clauses, represents good planning, is in the public interest, and satisfies all legislative requirements.

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever and minor variances to create a new residential building lot in Orangeville.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance and variances met the criteria under s. 51(24) and the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforming to the Growth Plan and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application and the failure to act on site plan applications by the Town of Grimsby.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that an Interim Control By-law affecting the subject property had been extended, and the Town was considering a secondary plan and zoning by-law amendment.

Due to the pending planning instruments, the Tribunal agreed it was premature to schedule a hearing on the merits and instead scheduled a further Case Management Conference for May 27, 2022.

Application arising from a commercial land sale dispute over the calculation of acreage payable under an agreement of purchase and sale for development land.

The court interpreted the contractual definition of 'Net Area' to exclude lands not specifically developable for industrial, commercial, or residential use, including environmental features, a road right-of-way, and lands burdened by a hydro easement unless remediated.

The applicant had closed under protest while facing practical compulsion arising from a downstream sale and was permitted to pursue restitution rather than breach of contract.

The respondents were found to have been unjustly enriched by retaining an overpayment of $2,442,595 with no juristic reason for doing so.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The applicant's motion to amend its notice of application was previously dismissed.

The respondents sought costs of $12,979.13 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant argued for no costs or deferred costs, citing divided success, novel questions of law, and its impecuniosity due to expropriation.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, finding the respondents were entirely successful and the applicant's conduct in bringing a duplicative and unnecessary motion warranted rebuke.

The court awarded the respondents costs fixed at $12,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought leave to amend its notice of application to add the interim Chief Building Official as a respondent and to appeal his alleged 'decision' that the applicant was not an 'aggrieved person' regarding a prior Unsafe Order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the proposed amendments were not legally tenable.

The court held that the interim official's communication was not an appealable 'decision' under section 25(1) of the Building Code Act, as standing is a determination for the court, not the official.