Lauren Melissa Benoit

The applicant appealed the city's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a licensed aggregate pit operation.

The tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed pit is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and will minimize environmental and public safety impacts through appropriate setbacks and mitigation measures.

The tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications intended to facilitate the construction of a new semi-detached dwelling on separate parcels.

The City did not appear at the hearing.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence provided by the applicants, the Tribunal found that the minor variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act and that the consent applications satisfied the statutory criteria.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed two inspection orders issued by the Smith Falls Fire Department regarding multiple alleged Fire Code violations at a large, multi-building complex.

The parties settled most issues, leaving seven items for the Fire Safety Commission to determine.

The Commission confirmed the orders requiring a fire separation for the theatrical stage, repairs to ensure certain fire separation doors close and latch, the maintenance of standpipe testing records, and the installation of exit signage.

The Commission rescinded the orders regarding two sets of doors, finding they were not required fire separations because they did not open onto public corridors or were not originally built as fire separations.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment refusal and an objection to an aggregate extraction licence.

The sole objector to the licence application withdrew its objection and requested participant status in the zoning appeal.

The Tribunal referred the licence application back to the Minister, granted the objector participant status in the zoning appeal, and issued a procedural order setting a five-day hearing.

The plaintiff condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a lien against the defendant unit owner for over $34,000 in legal costs incurred defending a Small Claims Court action, plus over $50,000 in costs for the current action.

The dispute originated from a $330 plumbing bill.

The court found that the defendant had paid all outstanding arrears and anticipated discharge costs early in the dispute, obligating the corporation to discharge the lien under s. 85 of the Condominium Act.

The court held the corporation's refusal to discharge the lien was unjustified and its claimed legal fees were grossly disproportionate and unreasonable.

The action was dismissed, and the lien and notice of sale were declared invalid.

The Municipality of Mississippi Mills and the County of Lanark brought a motion to dismiss appeals of two Official Plan Amendments without a hearing.

The appellant, a self-represented individual with a history of bringing unsubstantiated appeals against the municipality, argued the amendments were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding prime agricultural areas.

The Tribunal found the appeals were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant had no direct interest in the lands and did not intend to call expert planning evidence.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal by 2651171 Ontario Inc. The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined the quantum of costs for the motions for summary judgment and the action.

The appellant sought substantial indemnity costs based on an offer to settle made under Rule 49.10(1).

The respondent, Patrick Brey, objected to the quantum and argued for a reduction due to the appellant's unproven allegations of fraud.

The court found the appellant prima facie entitled to substantial indemnity costs due to the offer to settle, but ordered a reduction in the total amount awarded due to the unfounded allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation made by the appellant, emphasizing that such serious allegations require strict pleading and proof.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a real estate agreement's requisition deadline for off-title objections, specifically regarding the lawful use of a property described as a fourplex.

The appellant buyer raised timely objections about the property's legal use, which the respondent seller refused to address, leading to the transaction's failure.

The motion judge had erred by misinterpreting the deadline provision, deeming the objections untimely.

The Court of Appeal found the objections were timely and valid, as the property's lawful use as a fourplex could not be confirmed.

The appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment set aside, and the appellant was granted the return of its deposit and damages.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a front-facing attached garage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the garage would be set back from the dwelling, secondary in nature, and compatible with the streetscape character.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

Following established jurisprudence, the court declined to provide reasons for denying leave.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $25,000.