Chantelle Bryson

The property owner requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding the City of Kenora's proposed expropriation of the Kenricia Hotel for community improvement and heritage rehabilitation.

The owner argued the expropriation was unnecessary and that they were willing to collaborate on restoration.

The Tribunal found that the City's objectives were clear and legitimate, and that in the absence of any definite alternative plan from the owner after 20 years, the expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's goals.

The appellant appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the municipality to permit the construction of a medical building on agricultural land.

The amendment included a holding provision pending the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing's approval of a related Official Plan Amendment.

The Ministry subsequently approved the Official Plan with modifications but rejected the site-specific re-designation for the subject property, rendering the Zoning By-law Amendment ineffective.

Upon learning that the Ministry's decision was final and not subject to appeal, the appellant withdrew its appeal.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the upcoming hearing regarding appeals of a proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment regulating short-term rentals in the Township of Sioux Narrows-Nestor Falls.

The hearing is scheduled for two days commencing March 14, 2024.

The Township brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment refusal without a hearing.

The appellant sought to rezone his property to permit short-term vacation rentals.

The Township argued the appeal could not succeed because the property is accessed via a private road traversing Crown and private lands, and the appellant lacked the necessary agreements or easements for commercial access.

The appellant countered that the road is a public road under the Public Lands Act and that the proposed use would not increase traffic.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding sufficient grounds to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed the City of Kenora's passage of official plan and zoning by-law amendments intended to convert the western half of Central Park into residential development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed instruments were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the City's Official Plan, as they failed to adequately protect necessary parkland and open space.

Furthermore, the City failed to demonstrate that the proposed sensitive residential land use would be compatible with a nearby railyard facility, and inappropriately attempted to defer necessary noise and compatibility studies to the site plan approval stage.

The appeals were allowed and the by-law was repealed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment to permit short-term vacation rentals.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and scheduled a four-day video hearing on the merits.

The respondent requested that the human rights application be dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's failure to produce medical and income records as previously ordered.

The applicant claimed she did not have the documents in her possession.

The Tribunal held that a production order requires a party to produce documents reasonably within their control, and that the requested documents (such as EI and tax records) were within the applicant's control.

The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application at this stage but ordered the applicant to produce the documents or specifically explain her efforts to obtain them, noting that unexplained failure could lead to an adverse inference or amount to an abuse of process.

The respondent employer filed a Request for Order During Proceedings to add Goldcorp Canada Ltd. as a respondent to the human rights application.

The applicant, who alleged failure to accommodate her mould allergy, opposed the request.

The Tribunal denied the request, holding that it is up to the applicant to determine the respondents against whom she wishes to proceed, and she had made no allegations against Goldcorp.

The respondent requested the production of the applicant's medical and employment records in a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment based on disability.

The applicant opposed the request as untimely.

The Tribunal found the request was not premature as the deadline for disclosure of arguably relevant documents had passed.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the issues of accommodation, mitigation, and remedy.

The respondent requested that the Tribunal defer consideration of the human rights application pending the outcome of the applicant's WSIB appeal.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB proceeding concerned the cause of the applicant's injury, whereas the human rights application concerned the respondent's duty to accommodate the applicant's disability.

As the duty to accommodate applies regardless of the cause of the disability, the facts and issues did not overlap sufficiently to warrant deferral.