Jonathan M. Sinopoli

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to add 14 dwelling units to two existing apartment buildings.

The appellant proposed changes to reduce the variances related to parking spaces.

The Tribunal ruled that the changes were minor and no further notice was required under s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

Participant status was granted to one individual, and a three-day hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 11410598 Canada Inc. concerning the Municipality of Chatham-Kent's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a nine-storey residential apartment building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to four individuals, approved the draft procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a five-day merit hearing for November 2025.

The Estate of John McKinlay sought summary judgment against the Municipality of Chatham-Kent for a declaration that the Municipality was responsible for maintaining a drainage tile (Drain) on the Estate's property and for reimbursement of repair costs and crop losses.

The Drain was installed under an easement granted by the Estate's predecessor to the Province, which was later transferred to the Municipality's predecessor.

The court found that the easement granted the Municipality the right to maintain the Drain but did not impose a positive obligation to do so.

Therefore, the claim for declaratory relief was dismissed.

However, the court declined to grant summary judgment dismissing the entire action, noting that the Estate's amended statement of claim pleaded facts capable of supporting a claim for damages in nuisance, which was not fully canvassed during the motion.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, allowing the nuisance claim to proceed to trial.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a 48-unit residential development in Chatham-Kent.

The self-represented appellant expressed concerns regarding traffic safety on Middleton Line.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to explore settlement and submit a Procedural Order and Issues List by November 15, 2023.

Mohawk Farm Limited brought a motion to dismiss Teresa Warren's appeal of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 72.

The appellant raised concerns regarding density, traffic, and road network modifications but failed to respond to the motion or indicate an intention to call expert evidence.

Applying the East Beach test, the Tribunal found that the appellant's apprehensions, without the support of expert evidence, did not constitute genuine land use planning grounds.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a minor variance to permit the construction of a 7.62-metre-tall accessory structure (a sports barn) on an estate residential lot, where the zoning by-law permitted a maximum height of 5.0 metres.

The applicants sought the variance to accommodate indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance maintained the general intent of the official plan and zoning by-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appeals were dismissed and the variance was authorized subject to a 7.0-metre setback condition.

The respondent brought a motion to vary a spousal support order, seeking a reduction from $17,224 to $4,835 per month due to a disability that significantly reduced his income from $600,000 to $104,400 annually.

The court found a material and long-lasting change in circumstances, a strong prima facie case for variation, and that continuing the existing support would cause hardship to the payor.

The motion was deemed urgent, partly because the income reduction predated the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted an interim variation, reducing spousal support to $4,835 per month and staying the enforcement of accumulated arrears.

The respondent brought an urgent motion to reduce spousal support due to a significant reduction in income following a medical diagnosis.

The court, operating under COVID-19 emergency protocols, determined that the matter met the definition of urgency as a 'dire issue regarding the parties’ financial circumstances' and allowed the motion to proceed.

The urgency determination was preliminary and without prejudice to the merits of the motion.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion to find the respondent in contempt of court for failing to direct his pension to the Family Responsibility Office for child support arrears.

The motion judge found it impossible to determine if the respondent had failed to direct the payment, and concluded the order was a payment order not enforceable by contempt.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent wilfully breached the clear terms of the order, despite his reprehensible conduct in cashing out the pension.