Gregory Stewart

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a zoning by-law amendment implementing its updated Official Plan.

At the second Case Management Conference, the appellant advised he was seeking new counsel and had retained a planner.

The parties indicated potential to resolve the appeal for most of the properties and agreed that a third Case Management Conference was necessary to finalize the scope of the appeal, the Procedural Order, and the Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file the finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and issued a Procedural Order governing the procedures leading up to a hearing for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued an Amended Procedural Order to revise the procedural timelines.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing for a determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing May 4, 2026.

The order sets out the schedule for pleadings, discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The appellant appealed a municipally initiated comprehensive zoning by-law amendment that introduced a new Natural Environment zone on his properties, arguing it did not permit ongoing agricultural uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to apply only to the appellant's properties.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal scoped accordingly and deemed the unappealed portions of the zoning by-law to have come into force on the day it was passed, pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed a condition of a provisional consent to sever a surplus farm dwelling that limited the severed parcel to 3.5 acres.

The applicant sought a 10-acre parcel to operate a market gardening business.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that a 10-acre severance would contribute to the fragmentation of agricultural land and that the 3.5-acre limit was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was dismissed and the conditions remained in effect.

Following interim motions where the respondent was largely successful in obtaining spousal and child support, the court determined costs.

Both parties were penalized for unreasonable behaviour: the respondent for failing to provide timely educational disclosure for an adult child, and the applicant for unilaterally removing the respondent from his benefits plan.

The applicant was ordered to pay net costs of $4,000.

The court also ordered the respondent to provide ongoing educational disclosure for the children as a condition of receiving child support.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging sexual harassment in employment and a failure by the respondents to properly investigate.

At the commencement of the hearing, the respondents requested that the two applications be heard together and that the hearing be adjourned.

The Tribunal ordered the applications consolidated due to overlapping facts and the risk of inconsistent findings, and granted the adjournment on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the exclusion of witnesses but exempted the respondents' advisor, provided he testify first.

Finally, the Tribunal ruled that intended testimony regarding one applicant spreading rumours was inadmissible character evidence.

The applicant brought a Request for Order during a Proceeding to add several municipalities as respondents and to compel disclosure of closed Board meeting minutes and a personnel file.

The Tribunal granted the request to add the municipalities, noting they comprise the unincorporated Mid-Huron Landfill Site Board and their addition ensures any award is enforceable.

The Tribunal declined to order disclosure of the disputed documents at this stage, requiring the applicant to establish an evidentiary foundation for relevance at the hearing on the merits.

The applicants, neighbouring farmers, complained of severe odours emanating from the respondent's two newly constructed segregated early weaning swine barns and manure pit.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board found that the applicants were aggrieved by the odour, which constituted a disturbance.

The Board determined that the respondent's operation was not a normal farm practice because the barns were not located in accordance with the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS II) guidelines of the Agricultural Code of Practice, which was the accepted standard in the region.

The Board ordered the respondent to install 60-foot exhaust stacks to disperse the odour and bring the operation into compliance with normal farm practices.

The union and the employer filed applications regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning their pay equity plan.

The parties had negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement in 1990 which they intended to serve as a pay equity plan.

The Tribunal found that the agreement failed to comply with the Pay Equity Act in several fundamental ways, including failing to consider benefits in job rates, failing to directly compare female to male job classes, and using pay equity adjustments for both male and female job classes to achieve internal equity.

The Tribunal concluded that no valid pay equity plan existed and ordered the parties to negotiate a new plan in compliance with the Act.