13 total
Case management conference held; parties ordered to provide status update pending related appeal.
The appellants appealed the Town's enactment of a comprehensive zoning by-law.
At a case management conference, the parties advised that they were continuing settlement discussions and that a related appeal, which had been adjourned sine die, would impact the present matter.
The Tribunal found that further processing of the appeals was premature and ordered the parties to provide a status update within 90 days.
Board has jurisdiction to hear application regarding zoning by-law setbacks for permitted cannabis agricultural operation.
The applicants, who operate an outdoor cannabis grow area, applied to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board for relief from a municipal zoning by-law that required site plan approval and a 300-metre setback from residential lots.
The municipality argued the Board lacked jurisdiction, relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in Oakville (Town) v. Read, asserting the by-law provisions were legitimate land use planning issues.
The Board found that the cannabis operation met the definition of an agricultural operation under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.
The Board further determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application, distinguishing the case from Oakville because the lands were zoned for agricultural use and cannabis cultivation was a permitted use, meaning the setback and site plan requirements were not purely land use planning issues that would deprive the Board of jurisdiction.
Minor variance for reduced front yard setback authorized based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence.
The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback from 12.5 metres to 7.0 metres for a proposed single detached dwelling.
The Town did not call a case, and the applicant summoned the Town's Manager of Development Planning, who provided uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the variance.
The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good land use planning.
The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.
Tribunal schedules four-day hearing on the merits for subdivision appeal after parties narrow issues.
The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframe.
During the initial hearing dates, the parties engaged in settlement discussions, reached an Agreed Statement of Facts, and narrowed the issues.
The Tribunal directed the submission of a final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a four-day hearing on the merits.
Consent for agricultural lot boundary adjustment granted as it constitutes farm consolidation without creating new lots.
The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application to sever 10.9 hectares of agricultural land and merge it with an adjacent agricultural property to facilitate a more efficient farming operation.
The Town opposed the application, arguing it constituted lot creation and would leave the retained parcel undersized under the 40-hectare minimum in the Official Plans.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposal was a minor lot boundary adjustment for farm consolidation that did not create a new lot, and that the retained parcel would remain agriculturally viable.
Party and participant status granted and second Case Management Conference scheduled in zoning appeal.
The appellant appealed the Town of New Tecumseth's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the construction of five freehold townhomes.
At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to one individual and participant status to another on consent.
The Tribunal directed the appellant to prepare a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.
Interim relief granted requiring racetracks to accept owner's horse entries pending delayed merits hearing.
Aubrey Friedman brought a motion for interim relief to require Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) to accept entries and nominations for his horses, after an expedited hearing could not be arranged as originally contemplated.
The Ontario Racing Commission panel found that the delay in arranging the expedited hearing constituted a significant change in circumstances that should not prejudice Friedman.
The panel ordered that Friedman's entries must be accepted by all Ontario racetracks for Ontario sired events, provided they meet qualifying standards, pending the hearing on the merits.
Interim stay of racing suspension denied; balance of convenience favoured protecting the integrity of horse racing.
The applicant, a standardbred owner, sought an interim stay of a suspension imposed by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) after his horses tested positive for EPO, a performance-enhancing drug.
The suspension prevented him from nominating horses for WEG stakes races.
The Ontario Racing Commission denied the interim relief, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as the harm was a result of his own business decision to retain the horses despite the suspension.
The balance of convenience heavily favoured WEG's right to protect the integrity of its racing product.
In a separate matter, the Commission upheld a $1,500 fine against a standardbred licensee but reduced his suspension to 13 days.
Appeal of WEG's refusal to accept horse entries due to positive drug test dismissed.
Standardbred licensee William Elliott appealed a decision by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) to disallow his horses' entries into stakes races after he received a second TCO2 positive test.
He also appealed the judges' refusal to immediately transfer his horses to new owners.
The Ontario Racing Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the judges' normal process for investigating trainer transfers should not be circumvented.
The Commission further held that WEG appropriately exercised its discretion under its rules to refuse the entries, and the Commission would not interfere in what was essentially a private contract dispute absent an overriding public interest.
Commission declines to order re-run or compensation following starter error in horse race.
The moving party, an owner of a horse that participated in the Maple Leaf Trot, brought a motion seeking an order to re-run the race or for compensation due to a starter error.
The starter had mistakenly flashed recall lights but let the race proceed, causing some drivers to take hold of their horses.
The Commission determined it had jurisdiction to order a re-run and to refund entry fees, but not to assess damages for lost purse opportunities.
However, the Commission declined to exercise its jurisdiction to hold a hearing for the requested relief, finding it contrary to the public interest and unfair to other participants who had already competed.
Appeal allowed; racing official's refusal to obey Steward's order justified where horse was clearly ineligible.
The appellant, a racing association official, appealed a $500 fine imposed by the Stewards for failing to comply with a Steward's direction.
The dispute arose when the appellant instructed his staff to pull the entry of a horse that was on the veterinarian's list and therefore ineligible to race, contrary to the Steward's instruction to leave the entry in until the Board of Stewards could rule on it.
The Panel found that the horse was clearly ineligible and the trainer agreed, meaning there was no dispute for the Board to resolve.
Given the appellant's blemish-free record and the circumstances, the appeal was allowed.
Application for hearing dismissed; track's retention barn requirement did not engage public interest.
The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, applied for a hearing regarding a requirement imposed by Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) that his horses be placed in a retention barn prior to racing.
The Commission convened a panel to determine if it had jurisdiction to hold the requested hearing.
The Commission found that WEG's requirement arose from its own policies and private contracts, not from a delegated power under the Racing Commission Act, 2000, meaning there was no statutory entitlement to a hearing under s. 11(7).
While the Commission had discretion to hold a hearing under s. 7(k), it declined to do so, finding that the specific application of the retention policy to the applicant did not engage the public interest or involve the good of horse racing generally.
Tribunal upholds racetrack's trespass notice excluding trainer, finding it serves the public interest.
The applicant, a licensed standardbred trainer, sought to have the Ontario Racing Commission review and rescind a trespass notice issued by the respondent racetrack operator, which excluded him from racing at its facilities following an equine drug violation.
The Commission first determined it had jurisdiction to review the exercise of the racetrack's private property rights where the issue primarily involved horse racing and the public interest.
On the merits, the Commission found that the racetrack's decision to exclude the trainer was a reasonable exercise of its property rights aimed at protecting the integrity of its racing product and business interests.
The Commission declined to modify the trespass notice and dismissed the trainer's request for reinstatement.
