Jacqueline Wilson

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot-mix asphalt plant to operate in conjunction with an existing quarry.

The Applicant argued the decision was unreasonable because the Director failed to properly consider the Statement of Environmental Values, cumulative effects, common law rights, and applicable guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable person could have made the decision, as the Director appropriately considered the relevant studies, policies, and mitigation measures.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tiny's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and referred an application for a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act, to permit the expansion of an existing gravel pit.

The parties reached a settlement reducing the extraction area and implementing mitigation measures.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and had regard to the required matters under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The appeals were allowed, the planning instruments were approved, and the Minister was directed to issue the licence.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a gravel pit expansion, the parties disputed whether an issue concerning the 2019 Growth Plan should be included on the Issues List.

The Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations argued the application was substantially changed since 2012 and should be subject to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal found that the aggregate application had been deemed complete in 2012, exempting it from the Growth Plan policies pursuant to section 4.2.8.7.

The Tribunal struck the disputed issue from the Issues List and scheduled an 11-day hearing.

The County of Simcoe adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (OPA 5) to clarify solid waste management policies.

The appellants appealed the adoption.

The County and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing challenged the appellants' statutory standing, arguing they did not make the required oral or written submissions prior to adoption.

The Tribunal directed the County to bring a written motion to determine the threshold issue of standing and set a schedule for filings.

The appellants appealed the County's Official Plan Amendment 2 (OPA 2) and the Township's failure to make a decision on related official plan and zoning by-law amendments, which would permit an Environmental Resource Recovery Centre (ERRC) in a significant woodland.

The appellants argued the facility would have negative impacts on the natural heritage system and did not qualify for exemptions under the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal found that the proposed facility would not cause negative impacts to the significant woodlands or wildlife habitat, and that the required off-site afforestation and reforestation provided appropriate compensation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals against OPA 2 and approved the related amendments in part, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

Nicholyn Farms Inc. brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of appeals regarding County of Simcoe Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (COPA 2) and to consolidate it with the hearing for appeals of County Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (COPA 5).

The County of Simcoe and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing opposed the motion, arguing that COPA 5 was not properly appealed and that an adjournment would cause significant prejudice and delay to the County's waste management objectives.

The Tribunal found that an adjournment would prejudice the County and the Ministry, and that the moving party failed to justify the delay.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for the hearing of appeals concerning the Township of Springwater's proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2 and Zoning By-law Amendment, which would permit a waste management facility in the Freele County Forest.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, which will be conducted by videoconference in two parts, and establishes the requirements for the parties before the hearing, including the exchange of witness lists, expert witness meetings, and the filing of participant statements.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to adopt a transitional regulation exempting a proposed waste management facility from the natural heritage policies of the 2019 Growth Plan.

The applicant also sought to quash a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that struck its appeal issues based on this regulation.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister exceeded his authority under s. 19(1)(d) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005, as the regulation did not address a genuine transitional matter but rather granted an exemption to key policies adopted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The regulation was declared ultra vires, and the LPAT decision was set aside and remitted.

Following a successful motion by the defendants, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants sought costs of both the motion and the underlying action.

After reviewing the parties' written submissions, the court held that the defendants were entirely successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendants in the amount of $3,500 plus GST.