Karen Shedden

The applicant sought declaratory relief and permanent injunctions against a neighbouring winery and the Town, alleging the winery hosted outdoor events in violation of the agricultural zoning by-law and its site-specific plan.

The winery consented to the declarations and injunctions.

The applicant proceeded against the Town, seeking mandamus to compel by-law enforcement and a statutory injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the Town from facilitating the breach.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application against the Town, finding that the by-law did not impose a duty of enforcement necessary for mandamus, and there was no evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness by the Town to warrant an injunction against it.

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the Divisional Court and awarded fixed costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 4-storey, 41-unit apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which reduced the building height and increased setbacks, was consistent with provincial policies and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The applicant appealed the conditions of a draft plan of subdivision approval for 16 residential lots in the Town of Fort Erie.

The dispute centered on three new conditions requested by the Region of Niagara requiring a Restoration Plan and associated securities to protect a 30-metre buffer to a provincially significant wetland.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the conditions were necessary and reasonable to mitigate impacts on the natural heritage system.

The appeal was dismissed and the conditions were added to the draft plan approval.

The appellants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment intended to facilitate the creation of three new residential lots.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were close to a settlement but required more time to resolve one remaining issue.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference and directed the parties to provide a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List, or confirmation of a resolution, prior to the next appearance.

The appellant appealed a decision restoring a restrictive covenant and Notice of Claim on her property.

The property was originally under the Registry Act, where a 1958 restrictive covenant was extended to 2038 by a 1998 Notice of Claim.

In 2003, the property was converted to the Land Titles system.

The appellant argued that under s. 119(9) of the Land Titles Act, the covenant was deemed to expire 40 years after its original 1958 registration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conversion to Land Titles did not extinguish the rights preserved by the Notice of Claim under the Registry Act, and the covenant remains valid until 2038.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Town of Fort Erie's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to facilitate the creation of two new residential lots.

The parties indicated they were engaging in private settlement discussions and requested additional time.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 3, 2024, and directed the parties to provide a Draft Procedural Order or status update by September 23, 2024.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to facilitate the creation of two new residential lots.

The CMC was adjourned because the Town of Fort Erie had not served notice as directed.

The parties reported they were working towards a settlement, and the CMC was rescheduled.

The appellant appealed the conditions attached to a consent application by the Committee of Adjustment for the Town of Fort Erie regarding a property severance.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant advised that it was withdrawing the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawal and ordered the case file closed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal originating from an application under the Land Titles Act, as appeals under that Act lie to the Divisional Court.

Consequently, the appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

No costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed the Town of Fort Erie's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted the redevelopment of a commercial property to include a restaurant with a drive-thru and a car wash, alongside an existing gas station.

The appellants, who owned an abutting residential property, raised concerns regarding noise, litter, and reduced rear yard setbacks.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert evidence in noise and land use planning, finding that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances to facilitate the construction of a new two-storey single-detached dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would replace an existing legal non-conforming one-storey dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the proposed dwelling was compatible with the neighbourhood and the variances were minor and desirable.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

This case addresses the complex interaction between the Land Titles Act and the Registry Act concerning the expiry of restrictive covenants on real property.

The central issue was whether a notice of claim, registered under the Registry Act to extend a restrictive covenant, remained effective after the property was converted to the land titles system.

The court determined that the date of registration for the purpose of the Land Titles Act's 40-year expiry rule becomes the date the notice of claim was filed, thereby extending the covenant's validity.

The court dismissed the applicant's request to delete a caution and set aside a prior order that had removed the covenant, ruling in favour of the respondent who benefited from the covenant.

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a cottage rental use on the subject property.

The variances sought reductions in on-site amenity area, parking stalls, and parking area setbacks.

The parties reached a settlement restricting the use to a two-bedroom cottage rental and requiring an encroachment agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, authorizing the variances subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a cottage rental in a Residential Development zone.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing and jointly requested approval of the variance.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variance.

The appellants appealed the refusal of the Chief Building Official to issue building permits for lots created by a testamentary devise.

The municipality refused the permits because the lots did not front onto an improved street as required by the zoning by-law.

The appellants proposed creating internal roadways owned by the lot owners to connect to public streets.

The court held that this proposal did not satisfy the by-law's requirement that the lots themselves front upon an improved street, and dismissed the appeals.