David Sundin

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a commercial plaza.

At the first case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal approved the draft procedural order and scheduled a second case management conference and a three-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan amendment and its refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law amendment.

The applications sought to permit the adjustment of a Settlement Area Boundary through a land swap.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties, establishing the procedural requirements and scheduling a three-day video hearing to commence on May 7, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by the applicant against the Town of Kingsville and the County of Essex regarding a proposed settlement area boundary adjustment through a land swap.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on April 8, 2025, for three days.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the passing of Official Plan Amendment 24 by the Town of Amherstburg.

The parties indicated that a settlement was promising but pending final instructions from the County.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings in the event the matter proceeds to a merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's passing of an Official Plan Amendment, which incorporates new Secondary Plan policies for an industrial park district.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a three-day hearing on the merits, and directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 21, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal added the word 'maximum' to a section of the attachment regarding lot coverage.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Essex and the Municipality of Leamington regarding boarding houses and farm worker housing.

The parties reached a settlement that modified the amendments to remove pedestrian connection requirements, adjust occupancy thresholds for boarding houses, and clarify zoning for off-site farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the modified amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the applicable Official Plans, and represent good planning by supporting the agricultural sector and ensuring safe housing for farm workers.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal granted a consent order to consolidate the two appeals due to commonality and overlapping issues.

The Tribunal also set dates for a 15-day merit hearing and directed the parties to file a final procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers against the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals on consent of the parties.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on April 15, 2024, by video.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claims for utility arrears, maintenance charges, and rent against the respondent tenant.

The parties had previously appeared before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), which issued a consent order declining jurisdiction over current claims but retaining jurisdiction over future invoices.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to treat the LTB order as final and binding.

The court awarded the appellant $292 for utility arrears incurred prior to the LTB order, upheld the dismissal of the maintenance charges and older utility claims due to the limitation period, and awarded the appellant costs of the trial.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding arrears of rent, utilities, and maintenance charges for a land lease community.

The trial judge had dismissed most claims, finding they fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) as rent.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred by failing to treat a prior LTB consent order—which declined jurisdiction over current claims and deferred them to Small Claims Court—as final and binding.

The appeal was allowed in part, awarding the appellants additional damages for utility arrears up to the date of the LTB order, and costs of the trial.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence to increase capacity by adding an outdoor rear patio.

Several local residents objected, citing concerns about noise, traffic, and garbage.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant had a stellar record and operated primarily as a restaurant, not a bar.

The objectors failed to establish that granting the licence was contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without additional conditions.