Kelly Duquette

Metrolinx applied for approval to expropriate portions of the subject properties for a temporary easement to provide construction access for track work related to the SmartTrack Program and GO Expansion.

Following discussions, the parties agreed to a revised, non-exclusive temporary easement with a reduced area.

The Tribunal found the proposed revised taking to be fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve Metrolinx's objectives of expanding and improving public transit services, and recommended approval of the expropriation.

The moving party, R.W. Tomlinson Limited, sought an order for costs against the Town of Greater Napanee and Keep Napanee Great following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for an asphalt plant.

Tomlinson alleged that the respondents acted unreasonably by pursuing an appeal with no reasonable prospect of success and raising irrelevant evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs against the appellant following the dismissal of the appellant's appeals regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant argued that the appellant persistently violated the Procedural Order and that the appeals were frivolous, in bad faith, and brought for a collateral purpose.

The Tribunal found that the appellant did not breach the Procedural Order, having provided adequate notice for withdrawing issues and a witness.

The Tribunal also found no evidence of frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct, concluding that the appellant raised valid planning issues.

The motion for costs was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application to permit a permanent hot-mix asphalt plant and a future ready-mix concrete plant.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the County and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence demonstrating that the plant is appropriately separated from sensitive land uses and that potential impacts related to noise, dust, odour, and traffic can be adequately mitigated.

The appeal was allowed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it did not conform to the Official Plan's height and density hierarchy and failed to provide appropriate transition to the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the Official Plan does not contain an implicit height and density hierarchy, and that the proposed development provides suitable transition through setbacks, stepbacks, and building orientation without relying solely on angular plane analysis.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Zoning By-law Amendment in part and deferred the Site Plan Approval appeal to allow the parties to reach an agreement.

The appellant community association appealed the City of Ottawa's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to permit a six-storey residential care facility.

The appellant argued that the Future Land Use Study was incomplete from a transportation perspective and that the development was premature due to existing transportation deficiencies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on traffic, that the developer is not responsible for fixing existing municipal transportation deficiencies, and that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Upper Hunt Club Community Association against the City's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a residential care facility.

The parties resolved most of the draft Procedural Order but disputed four items on the Issues List.

The Tribunal ruled on the contested issues, striking speculative and redundant language, finalized the Issues List, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Bertone Montreal Road LP against the City of Ottawa for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two parties and approved the draft Procedural Order, including a provision allowing participants to refine their statements 45 days before the hearing.

A five-day merits hearing was scheduled for April 2023.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two parties on consent.

The only dispute regarding the draft Procedural Order was whether a participant could submit a refined participant statement 45 days prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the provision, noting it is appropriate for participants to review the approved issues list and refine their statements accordingly.

A five-day merits hearing was scheduled.

The defendants brought a motion to adjourn a three-week trial scheduled to commence in one month, citing the plaintiffs' late production of documents and two expert reports.

The plaintiffs agreed to withdraw one expert report if the trial proceeded.

The court applied the factors from Ariston Realty and Igbinosun, finding that the defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating why they could not proceed or how their defence would be significantly compromised.

The court emphasized the prejudice of delay to the plaintiffs in an eight-year-old action and dismissed the motion, without prejudice to the defendants seeking relief at trial regarding the late productions.