Laura M. Gurr

The Township sought an adjournment of a scheduled merit hearing on the basis that it intended to voluntarily rescind the impugned amending development charges by-law, rendering the appeal moot.

The Appellant opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice regarding wasted legal costs and the potential loss of statutory refunds for its members under s. 18 of the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that a voluntary repeal would render the requested remedy moot regardless of the adjournment, and that costs could be addressed through a subsequent motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing regarding the Township of Selwyn's development charges by-laws.

The underlying appeal by Camping in Ontario challenges whether the installation of Park Model Trailers constitutes 'development' under the Development Charges Act and whether the by-laws properly define and assess charges for such trailers.

The hearing is scheduled for four days commencing March 3, 2026.

The applicant unit owner sought an order requiring the respondent condominium corporation to produce an insurance denial letter related to a flood incident, along with a penalty and costs.

The corporation maintained that the requested record did not exist and was not in its control, as its insurance broker and insurer declined to provide a formal denial letter.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found that the corporation had a reasonable excuse for not providing the record because it did not possess it.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on consent and minor variance applications to sever a lot containing an existing residential dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal approved the consent subject to conditions and authorized the minor variances, finding they were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

The Applicant appealed the City of London's refusal of a Zoning By-law amendment to permit a four-storey apartment building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted Party status on consent to two neighbouring property owners.

The parties requested a third Case Management Conference to pursue settlement discussions based on an agreed Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled the third Case Management Conference for January 2025.

The applicant, a non-profit corporation operating a seniors' apartment complex, sought a municipal property taxation exemption under s. 3(1)(12)(iii) of the Assessment Act, claiming to be "organized for the relief of the poor." The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation opposed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not demonstrate the required "endeavour" to relieve poverty as interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Religious Hospitallers of St. Joseph Housing Corp. and reaffirmed in Stamford Kiwanis Non-Profit Homes Inc. The court also found insufficient evidence that the majority of the applicant's tenants were "poor" within the meaning of the legislation, despite some units being Rent Geared-to-Income and a means test for others.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of London's refusal to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment for a property on Commissioners Road West.

An abutting property owner requested party status, which the Tribunal deferred to a second CMC to allow parties to review the written request.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second CMC.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to approve the establishment of a Muslim cemetery on 43.8 acres of prime agricultural land.

The applicant argued the cemetery was a permitted use under the zoning by-law and served a cultural need.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that establishing the cemetery was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal prioritized the provincial interest in protecting prime agricultural lands over the cultural facility provision, noting the applicant failed to provide a needs analysis or evaluate alternative locations outside prime agricultural areas as required by the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Ummati Cemetery against the Township of Cramahe's refusal to permit the establishment of a cemetery.

The Tribunal approved the agreed-upon Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a two-day video hearing for September 2023.

A scheduled three-hour special appointment hearing was adjourned due to a potential conflict of interest identified by counsel.

The court noted that despite the adjournment on consent, the matter was not fully ready for hearing as the plaintiff had not filed a factum and neither party had filed a compendium, both required by practice directions for special appointment hearings.

The endorsement emphasized the necessity of compliance with new mandated procedures for court filings, warning that non-compliance could result in the court declining to hear a matter.

The applicant unit owner challenged the validity of a condominium rule that grandfathered existing 'legacy cats' despite a strict 'no pets' provision in the declaration.

The condominium corporation had historically failed to enforce the no pets provision for over 30 years and enacted the rule to transition into compliance while avoiding litigation from current cat owners.

The Tribunal found the rule was a reasonable transition measure and a valid exercise of the board's authority to balance communal and private interests.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant unit owner challenged the validity of the condominium corporation's Rule 27, which permitted existing 'legacy cats' to remain on the premises despite a strict 'no pets' provision in the declaration.

The condominium corporation had historically failed to enforce the no-pets provision for over 30 years and enacted Rule 27 as a transition measure to bring itself into compliance over time.

The Tribunal found that Rule 27 was a reasonable effort to balance the rights of current cat owners with the obligation to enforce the declaration, and dismissed the application.