Kathleen Kinch

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to legalize the limited residential use (office, multi-purpose space, and sanitary facilities) of the second-storey loft of an existing detached garage on a waterfront property.

The municipality argued the use constituted a dwelling unit and would negatively impact the at-capacity Lake Trout Lake.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed use did not include bedrooms or kitchens, the existing septic system was adequate, and the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appellants appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on their zoning by-law amendment application to permit the replacement and redevelopment of an existing waterfront dwelling and garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals to the City of Kawartha Lakes' new Rural Zoning By-law.

One appellant withdrew, and another reached a partial settlement.

The Tribunal directed that the remaining appeals be heard separately and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for August 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes' new Rural Zoning By-law, which consolidates 14 existing by-laws.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, consolidated the Mariposa appeals, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference as well as merit hearings for specific appellants.

Procedural directions were issued for the submission of Draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists.

The appellants brought a motion for costs against an added party, Mr. Earl, seeking $42,646.65 for costs incurred due to a motion to extend time for filing an expert witness statement and for hearing costs.

The appellants argued Mr. Earl's conduct was unreasonable and frivolous, citing his expert's failure to adhere to the procedural order and his raising of a stormwater management issue not shared by the approval authorities.

The Tribunal found that while the expert's unresponsiveness and failure to meet deadlines was problematic, it did not result in significant delay or prejudice.

The Tribunal concluded Mr. Earl's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award, and dismissed the motion.

The appellants appealed the failure of the Township and County to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate a 16-lot residential development.

The appellants reached a settlement with the municipalities, resolving concerns about municipal water supply.

A neighbouring property owner maintained an objection regarding potential stormwater management impacts on his property.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion by the neighbour to extend the time for filing an expert witness statement due to non-compliance with the Procedural Order.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert evidence of the appellants, the Tribunal found that the proposed stormwater management plan was appropriate and would likely improve existing conditions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan in principle, subject to finalization.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed 20-lot residential subdivision due to the municipality's failure to make a decision.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner concerned with stormwater management and participant status to another individual.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an existing small-scale shed within the shoreline setback on their seasonal recreational property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised amendment that defined the structure as a 'marine storage shed' and established specific regulations for its size and setbacks.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant sought costs against the appellant after the appellant withdrew his appeal of a zoning by-law amendment shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the costs request despite the withdrawal and granted the applicant party status for the motion.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the appellant's conduct in filing the appeal, inquiring about purchasing the property, and ultimately withdrawing the appeal in response to a communication from the applicant's counsel was reasonable and did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct required for a costs award.

The applicant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage business on an agricultural property.

The applicant argued the business qualified as an on-farm diversified use (OFDU).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed trailer sales could operate independently of the farming operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found the proposed commercial highway activity was not appropriate for the rural road.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of a recreational dwelling on a vacant waterfront lot.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised amendment that included a site-specific Shoreline Residential zone, a refined Environmental Constraint zone, and comprehensive environmental mitigation measures.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and environmental evidence, finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

At a case management hearing in a guardianship dispute, the court ordered the waiver of solicitor-client privilege for three lawyers who prepared Powers of Attorney for the incapable person, Paul Tanti, to allow them to testify at the upcoming hearing.

The court also directed that former Section 3 counsel for Paul Tanti transition to the role of amicus curiae, given her intimate knowledge of the complex and highly acrimonious proceeding, and set out the order of presentation and permitted evidence for the upcoming hearing.

Following a decision to set aside a guardianship order, the parties made written submissions on costs.

Although the respondent was successful in setting aside the order, the court declined to award her costs due to her unreasonable conduct, which included prolonging the hearing and ignoring the spirit of the judgment.

The applicant was also denied costs as he was unsuccessful and had relied on inaccurate information.

The court ordered no costs to either party.

The moving party, the wife of the incapable person, brought a motion to set aside a 2019 ex parte Guardianship Order that appointed the incapable person's son as his sole guardian of property and person.

The court found that the original order was intended to be temporary and was granted based on allegations of missing funds and abandonment that were later admitted to be untrue.

The court set aside the Guardianship Order on grounds of procedural fairness and under Rule 59.06(2)(a) based on facts discovered after it was made.

However, the court temporarily stayed the setting aside of the order for 90 days to prevent a vacuum in the incapable person's care while the parties determine the validity of competing powers of attorney.

The applicant appealed the failure of the County of Peterborough and the Township of Selwyn to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant sought to recognize and permit the existing legal non-conforming use of a motor vehicle repair shop and to allow for a building addition.

The municipalities argued that land use compatibility concerns had not been adequately addressed and that mitigation measures should be resolved at the policy stage rather than the site plan stage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies and that any impacts on neighbouring residences could be adequately mitigated through a robust site plan agreement.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the reconstruction of an in-water boathouse and an addition to a sleeping cabin.

The parties had reached a tentative settlement, but the Township Council did not endorse it.

Consequently, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits for June 2022.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and consent to sever a 0.8-hectare parcel for residential purposes.

The key issue was whether the proposed reduction in the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback from an adjacent livestock facility was appropriate.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Official Plan, and did not meet the limited site-specific circumstances for reducing the MDS setback under Guideline 43.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the reconstruction and expansion of an in-water boathouse and an addition to a sleeping cabin.

The parties indicated a tentative settlement was pending Township Council approval.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner and scheduled a further one-day video hearing to consider the anticipated settlement.

The moving party, Sharon Joseph, brought a motion to set aside or vary an order of Benotto J.A. which had dismissed her motion to expedite an appeal of an interlocutory order.

The interlocutory order in question had granted a stay of guardianship proceedings pending the disposition of an appeal regarding the validity of a marriage.

The Court of Appeal found no error in Benotto J.A.'s reasoning that the order was procedural and interlocutory, and therefore no appeal lay to the Court of Appeal.

The court also noted that determining the marriage's validity first was efficient.

The motion to vary was dismissed, and the purported appeal was quashed.

The applicants appealed the refusal of their consent and minor variance applications by the Town of Cobourg Committee of Adjustment.

The applications sought to sever a residential lot in the West Heritage Conservation District to create a new infill lot and to permit a reduced lot frontage for the new lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance had regard to the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the minor variance met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the proposal was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plans and heritage guidelines, and would not adversely impact the cultural heritage value of the district.