Konstantine John Stavrakos

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton, Conservation Halton, Presidio Construction Limited, and Sofina Foods Inc. The Tribunal also approved a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a three-week hearing on the merits.

A Case Management Conference was held to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List regarding appeals for a proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and an Aggregate Resources Act licence for a new sand and gravel pit.

The Tribunal finalized the procedural matters on consent and scheduled a 20-day hearing to commence in July 2023.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-rise residential development, the Tribunal addressed the draft Procedural Order, mediation opportunities, and the Issues List.

The Tribunal excluded three disputed issues relating to consistency and conformity with provincial plans from the Issues List because they were not raised in the appellant's notice of appeal.

An eight-day video hearing was scheduled.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey residential building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton and Conservation Halton.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for March 2023.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use, the Applicant requested party status.

The Hearing Office granted the request on consent, finding the Applicant had a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding.

The parties also discussed the identification of issues and the scheduling of the hearing, resulting in procedural directions and a scheduled hearing date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the hearing plan and procedural directions for appeals concerning the redevelopment of the Glen Abbey golf course.

The Tribunal approved a segmented hearing approach, scheduling a five-week block in 2022 for technical discipline evidence, and finalized a four-day per week hearing plan for the main hearing commencing in August 2021.

Additional directions were provided regarding electronic document submission, verbatim reporting, and a strict prohibition against unauthorized recording of the proceedings.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding the applicable legislative and policy framework for a subdivision development proposal.

The LPAT had determined that the current policy regime applied, relying on the retroactive application of s. 22.1 of the Planning Act to establish the request date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the LPAT's determination involved questions of mixed fact and law, and that the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the court's attention.

The Appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for an eight-turbine wind facility.

The Appellants argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to aviation risks at two nearby aerodromes, and serious and irreversible harm to endangered bat species.

The Tribunal found that the proximity of the turbines to the aerodromes created an inadequate margin for error, posing a serious risk to human health.

The Tribunal also found that the project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the local population of the endangered little brown myotis bat.

The appeals were allowed in part and the hearing was adjourned to determine the appropriate remedy.

The province issued a renewable energy approval to the respondent for a wind turbine project, which included the use of an unopened municipal road allowance.

The appellant city, opposing the project, passed a resolution refusing any request to use the road.

The Divisional Court quashed the resolution, finding it frustrated the legislative purpose of the provincial approval and was made in bad faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the city's appeal, confirming that the renewable energy approval was a positive entitlement and the city's resolution conflicted with it under section 14 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Court also upheld the finding of bad faith.

The Tribunal, on its own initiative, adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for the Fairview Wind Project.

The statutory six-month deadline for the Tribunal to dispose of the hearing was approaching.

Because the parties requested a lengthy period for filing final written submissions, the Tribunal determined that a 64-day adjournment was necessary to ensure sufficient time to deliberate and issue a written decision on the merits.

At a preliminary hearing regarding appeals of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant and presenter status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association and presenter status to several individuals and organizations, finding they had genuine interests in the proceeding.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions for the main hearing.

The applicant obtained a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) to construct industrial wind turbines.

The respondent municipality, an 'unwilling host' to wind projects, passed a resolution refusing the applicant access to a municipal road necessary for the project.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Divisional Court quashed the resolution, finding that it frustrated the purpose of the provincially-issued REA and was passed in bad faith for the improper purpose of stopping the project rather than legitimately regulating roadways.

The municipality was ordered to consider the applicant's road use and permit applications in good faith.

The appellant municipality discovered an 1854 by-law purporting to establish a public road along the shoreline of Georgian Bay.

It registered the by-law in 2007 and sought a declaration that the road was a public highway owned by the municipality.

The respondents, who own cottage properties on the purported road, successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that summary judgment was appropriate, the 1854 by-law lacked sufficient certainty to establish a road, and the unregistered by-law was void against the respondents who had no actual notice of it.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that upheld interim control by-laws and zoning amendments restricting short-term accommodations in the Town of Blue Mountains.

The moving parties argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Planning Act, the Human Rights Code, and the doctrine of 'people zoning', and that it denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any question of law, concluding the by-laws regulated land use rather than personal characteristics and were a justified planning response.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of the Environment's approval of Terms of Reference for an environmental assessment regarding a transportation corridor.

The applicant argued that the Terms of Reference conflicted with the Growth Plan under the Places To Grow Act, 2005, because they did not restrict the study to the existing highway route.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Growth Plan did not preclude considering alternative routes and that the Minister's decision was reasonable.