Jora Kuner

The applicant condominium owner sought an order requiring her neighbour, the respondent, to cease making unreasonable noise, described as loud thumping and pounding.

The respondent denied making the noise and provided video evidence with decibel readings to demonstrate her unit was not the source.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found insufficient objective evidence to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was creating or permitting the noise.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant, an adjacent landowner, sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for upgraded sewage works at a neighbouring wedding venue.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing under s. 38(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

However, the applicant failed to satisfy the leave test under s. 41.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that the upgraded sewage system posed a low risk to the environment and would actually improve upon the existing system.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the Issues List for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal approved the issues proposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, with an amendment to include water quality and quantity.

The Tribunal struck several issues proposed by the appellant, finding that concerns regarding the need for a site visit, the applicant's past conduct, and the need for an occupancy permit were not substantive issues for adjudication under the applicable legislation.

A procedural order was issued and a one-day video hearing was scheduled.

The applicant sought $51,562.22 in costs against the appellant following the appellant's unsuccessful appeal of a development permit for a commercial wedding venue.

The applicant argued the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious, alleging he caused unnecessary delays and presented misleading evidence.

The Hearing Officer applied the three-step test for costs and found that the appellant's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just and expeditious determination.

The application for costs was dismissed.