Courtney Boyd

The Ontario Land Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Ponderosa Nature Resort against the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval for a mobile home park and seasonal campground.

The Tribunal directed that the applicable provincial and local policy framework be determined by a written motion, ordered the applicant to provide updated application materials, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision dated May 13, 2026.

The amendment replaced paragraph 6 to clarify the applicant's position regarding private septic system requirements and the scope of the Environmental Assessment.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Ponderosa Nature Resort against the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on site-specific applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and for Site Plan approval.

The applicant requested a hearing be scheduled for the fall of 2026.

The Tribunal found that scheduling a hearing was premature as the Issues List had not been finalized.

The Tribunal identified a list of recommended issues and directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List prior to the next Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of two residential buildings providing 519 rental apartment units.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the City's Urban Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for an industrial subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals on consent.

The parties agreed to seek a Tribunal-led mediation assessment and submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference for November 2026 and a nine-day hearing on the merits for February 2027.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Haley’s Elevator Inc. against the County of Brant's refusal of Zoning By-law Amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The applications propose 108 single detached dwellings.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The plaintiff estate brought a motion for summary judgment against two defendants, a numbered company and its director, arguing they were common employers with another related company against which the plaintiff already held an unsatisfied wrongful dismissal judgment.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by res judicata and that they were not common employers.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion against the corporate defendant, finding a clear objective intention to create an employment relationship within the interrelated family hotel business.

The court dismissed the claim against the individual director, finding no intention for him to be personally liable.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, as the common employer doctrine prevents the unjust application of res judicata to shield related corporate entities.

The applicant, Berardi Construction, sought to rescind an order to comply issued by the County of Norfolk requiring a building permit for a retaining wall.

The court found that the retaining wall was not a "building" for the purposes of the Building Code Act and that no building permit was required.

The order to comply was rescinded, and the issue of damages was directed to proceed to trial.

The appellant appealed the County's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a bulk water delivery business on agricultural lands.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to only a reduction in the roadway setback to 21 metres, abandoning other requested provisions.

The Tribunal applied the Clergy Principle to assess the application under the 2012 Official Plan rather than the newly enacted 2023 Official Plan.

The Tribunal also determined it lacked jurisdiction to make a stand-alone finding of fact on whether the business constituted an Agriculture-Related Use.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the scoped amendment for the reduced setback.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development consisting of single detached units, townhouses, and apartments.

The parties reached a settlement resolving most issues, deferring consideration of one medium-density block, and addressing noise classification.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the instruments in principle subject to conditions.

The applicant sought an order declaring the enforcement of a second mortgage statute-barred and directing its discharge from title due to the expiry of the limitation period.

The respondent argued that an oral agreement extended the limitation period, relying on promissory estoppel and part performance.

The court found no credible evidence of an oral agreement, determined that promissory estoppel did not apply as there was no unambiguous promise or detrimental reliance, and concluded that the doctrine of part performance was inapplicable.

Consequently, the court declared the mortgage statute-barred and ordered its discharge.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse the transfer of a liquor licence.

The Registrar argued the applicant made false statements on the application by failing to disclose past criminal charges and Highway Traffic Act convictions, and that his past conduct, including a recent conviction for drug trafficking, afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not knowingly make false statements, as he acted in good faith and misunderstood the disclosure requirements.

However, the Tribunal upheld the refusal to transfer the licence, finding that the applicant's recent serious criminal conviction and ongoing parole status demonstrated a sufficient nexus to his ability to carry on business in accordance with the law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed planning instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the County's Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed planning instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the County's Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Sifton Properties Limited against the City of Brantford's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities and individuals, and scheduled a 12-day merit hearing to commence in July 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local group, approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and directed the parties to contact the Case Coordinator for a mediation assessment.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to rezone agricultural lands to a holding provision for suburban residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment, subject to a holding provision requiring a draft plan of subdivision and technical studies, was consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a draft plan of subdivision.

A case management conference was held to organize the appeals.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner on consent, as the proposed development would share certain facilities and services.

The Tribunal approved the procedural order and scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant sought costs against the appellant following the appellant's withdrawal of his appeals 17 minutes prior to the deadline for submitting hearing materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while the appellant's limited availability did not amount to unreasonable conduct, the late withdrawal of the appeals was unfair and frivolous, as the applicant had already incurred expenses preparing and filing materials.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision, arguing that his responsibilities had changed following the hiring of a new senior employee, which he contended amounted to a constructive dismissal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's argument directly contradicted the trial judge's factual findings.

The trial judge had expressly found that the appellant maintained his role as general manager, that there was no change in the company's hierarchy, and no evidence of a change in his remuneration or bonus package.

The appellate court concluded that the trial judge made no legal error and that her well-supported factual findings were fatal to the appellant's position.