Conner Harris

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a kennel as a home industry in an existing agricultural barn to house 13 personal dogs.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed use was generally consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement as an 'other rural land use', it did not conform to the County Official Plan due to the barn's proximity to a neighbouring residence and the potential for adverse noise impacts.

Furthermore, the proposal was not consistent with the intent of the Township's Zoning By-law, which explicitly prohibits kennels and defines them as commercial enterprises.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant municipality for negligence and nuisance, alleging that a replacement culvert installed by the municipality caused flooding that damaged their buildings.

The buildings were constructed on the municipality's shore road allowance pursuant to building permits issued decades earlier.

The court found that the new culvert was not the cause of the flooding, as the property had a history of flooding prior to its installation.

Furthermore, the court held that the municipality did not owe a private law duty of care to prevent flooding on its own land, and its decision not to undertake further hydrological studies was a protected policy decision.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the property at 554-552 Eglinton Avenue East.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference where participant and party status were granted on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow for Tribunal-led mediation.

The applicants, the titled owners of a residential property, brought an application to evict the respondent mother and brother from the home.

The respondent brother, acting as power of attorney for the mother, brought a cross-application asserting trust claims against the property on behalf of their deceased father's estate.

The court allowed the eviction application and dismissed the estate application, finding that the mother lacked standing to advance trust claims on behalf of the intestate estate and that the claims were statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act.

Furthermore, the court found no evidence to support a resulting or constructive trust, as the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by evidence that the property transfer was for consideration.

Metrolinx brought a motion to compel the claimant to deliver an affidavit of documents, schedule examinations for discovery, and cancel the upcoming hearing dates in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The claimant agreed to the documentary and discovery relief but opposed vacating the hearing dates.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to deliver the affidavit of documents and attend discovery on specified dates, and vacated the scheduled hearing dates, allowing the parties to seek new dates upon the claimant's compliance.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 46-storey mixed-use building.

At the outset, the Tribunal held a motion hearing and determined it lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(50.1) of the Planning Act to consider an expansion of the OPA to include adjacent lands that were not part of the original application or appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in principle, finding that the proposed reclassification to 'Station Area Core' and the 46-storey height were appropriate given the site's proximity to a new LRT station.

The Tribunal also approved the proposed 5.5 m tower setback to the north and 6.0 m base building setback along Bayview Avenue, preferring the applicant's expert evidence over the City's.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural order to change the hearing start date from June 15, 2025, to November 24, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and ordered the hearing to commence on the new date, with all other aspects of the procedural order remaining the same.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by the applicant regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit the development of five residential apartment buildings with heights ranging from 12 to 30 storeys.

The order establishes the issues list, procedural dates, and a 20-day hearing scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 46-storey mixed-use building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals.

The Tribunal also identified a jurisdictional issue regarding the expansion of the OPA lands post-appeal and directed that a motion hearing be held to determine the status of the expanded OPA prior to the merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction and enlargement of an existing dwelling on a property located on a barrier beach.

The Tribunal found that the property is located within a riverine floodplain and meets the definition of hazardous land under O. Reg. 41/24.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed development would increase the size of the building, thereby increasing the potential occupancy and the risk to health and safety during a regulatory flood event.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the property lacks safe access for vehicles and people during times of flooding, rendering the proposal inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the refusal of the permit was upheld.

Following a successful claim for injurious affection where no land was taken, the claimant sought costs under section 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The respondent conceded liability for costs but disputed the reasonableness of several specific items, including costs for a change of counsel, prior counsel assessment, and various motions.

The Tribunal applied the principle that expropriation costs are awarded on a full indemnity basis subject to reasonableness.

The Tribunal disallowed costs related to the change of counsel and assessment, reduced costs for bill preparation and cost recovery, but allowed the majority of the disputed motion and consulting costs.

The respondent was ordered to pay $355,603.68 in costs plus $7,500 for the costs motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision.

The parties requested a further CMC in the fall to allow time for an ongoing Environmental Assessment in the Golden Mile area to unfold.

The Tribunal agreed and scheduled a fourth CMC for October 31, 2024.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss a claim for injurious affection arising from sewer repair works.

The City argued the claim was barred due to insufficient notice under s. 22(1) of the Expropriations Act, the expiry of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the doctrine of laches.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claimants provided sufficient notice via email in 2011 and subsequent communications.

The Tribunal also held that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply to Expropriations Act claims, and the doctrine of laches was inapplicable given the ongoing communications and lack of prejudice to the City.

The claimant in an expropriation proceeding brought a motion to admit an updated spreadsheet detailing its relocation expenses, which the Tribunal had previously refused to admit on the first day of the hearing due to late production.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing it violated the Rules of Civil Procedure, was barred by issue estoppel, and constituted an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the claimant provided a reasonable explanation for the late production, the respondent now had ample time to review the document, and the Tribunal's broad procedural powers allowed it to revisit evidentiary rulings to ensure a fair resolution on the merits.

The parties requested an adjournment of the third Case Management Conference on consent to continue mediation discussions regarding appeals for the failure of the City of Toronto to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference for September 18, 2024, to allow the parties to determine whether a resolution could be attained.

The appellant appealed the refusal of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority to issue a development permit.

During the course of the hearing, new legislative amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and O.Reg 41/24 came into effect.

The Tribunal ruled that the new legislation governs the de novo appeal and granted an adjournment to allow the parties and their experts to address the new law.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's motion to amend his witness list but denied a request for a site visit as premature.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of lands in Toronto.

The parties agreed on a four-day hearing and submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing for April 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval for a proposed 35-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement on the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until various conditions are satisfied.

The applicant sought costs against a residents' group following a settlement hearing regarding a zoning by-law amendment appeal.

The applicant argued the residents' group engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to comply with tribunal orders, failing to communicate, and failing to call evidence on their issues, which caused the applicant to incur unnecessary expert and legal fees.

The Tribunal found the residents' group's conduct to be unreasonable and ordered them to pay $1,750 in costs to the applicant.