Jeffrey Hewitt

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion for directions to declare unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan) in force and effect.

The appellants had agreed to scope their appeals on a site-specific or area-specific basis.

Sorge Enterprises Inc., a non-appellant party sheltering under the appellants' issues, opposed the motion, arguing that the appeals should not be scoped and the broader Environmental Protection Designation should remain under appeal for all lands.

The Tribunal granted the Town's motion, finding that a non-appellant sheltering party has no right to craft issues or dictate the scope of appeals, which is the prerogative of the actual appellants.

The unappealed portions of the OPA were declared in force and effect.

The applicants sought a judicial recount of the ballots cast in the 45th General Election for the electoral district of Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore, where the initial count showed a 77-vote margin.

The court granted the application based on credible affidavit evidence of counting errors, without requiring proof of materiality.

During the recount, the court ruled on numerous disputed ballots, strictly applying the mandatory requirement for a mark in the circle while objectively assessing whether extraneous marks could identify the elector.

The court also admitted special ballots bearing initials on the reverse, finding they were likely placed by election officers.

The recount concluded with the leading candidate's margin reduced to four votes, confirming the election result.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment, Sorge Enterprises Inc. brought a motion seeking to invalidate the County's Notice of Decision and to be added as an appellant despite filing its appeal out of time.

Sorge argued the Notice was deficient for failing to explicitly list registered owners as having appeal rights.

The Tribunal found the Notice of Decision met all prescribed regulatory requirements and was valid.

Consequently, Sorge's appeal was out of time, and the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory appeal period.

Sorge's request to be added as an appellant was denied, but it was granted non-appellant party status on consent.

The court considered whether a strip of land (the "0020 property") between the applicant's two properties was a public highway that should vest in the Town of Essex under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The applicant argued the land was a roadway on a registered plan of subdivision and should be owned by the Town.

The court found that the land was never dedicated or accepted as a public highway, was not used by the public, and was instead used by the respondent golf course for irrigation.

The application was dismissed and ownership confirmed in the respondent.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the storage of fireworks on lands located in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that while public safety concerns were addressed by federal licensing, the application was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because the appellants failed to provide a rigorous assessment of need or a comprehensive evaluation of alternative locations.

Furthermore, the application did not conform to the Town Official Plan as the proposed use was not part of a municipal initiative and was not demonstrated to be inappropriate within a settlement area.

The appeals were denied and the application was refused.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of their application to amend the Zoning By-law to allow for the storage of fireworks.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to 11 individuals without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 3-day merit hearing to commence on April 4, 2023, and directed the Town's counsel to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Oakdale Trails Inc. against the Town's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 8600.

The appellant argued that the by-law allowed for excessive building heights and density, and raised concerns about sanitary sewer capacity.

The Tribunal found that the appeal did not disclose any genuine, legitimate land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal accepted the Town's evidence that the by-law conformed with the Official Plan and that servicing capacity was adequate.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted an increase in maximum building height from 12.0 m to 15.5 m for a four-storey apartment building.

The appellant argued the height increase was incompatible with the surrounding single-family dwellings and not respectful of the 'small town character' of Lucan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's planner, finding that the revised proposal, which included increased setbacks and buffering, appropriately mitigated potential impacts.

The Tribunal concluded the development was compatible with existing development, respectful of the small-town character, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part only to implement the revised by-law.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to the City of Windsor to permit a municipal building gallery and washroom facilities to extend above the crown of Riverside Drive.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development failed all four tests for a minor variance under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Relying on expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was not minor, and was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was denied.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination because his short and long-term disability benefits were terminated at age 60 under the collective agreement.

The application was filed approximately 10.5 months after the expiry of the one-year limitation period under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued the delay was in good faith because he was waiting for the conclusion of the grievance process.

The Tribunal held that waiting for another proceeding to conclude does not constitute a good faith reason for delay.

The application was dismissed as out of time.

The applicant alleged age discrimination regarding the denial of disability benefits under a collective agreement after turning 60.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that a prior conciliation of a grievance dealt with the substance of the application, or alternatively deferred under s. 45 pending collective bargaining.

The Tribunal denied the request to dismiss because the conciliation did not result in a determination of the substance of the application, as the grievance was withdrawn.

The Tribunal also denied the request to defer, finding no parallel proceeding underway.

The appellants, two police officers, appealed a disciplinary penalty of a nine-month demotion in rank for discreditable conduct.

The officers had engaged in a scheme of sending unwanted mail-order items and subscriptions to the homes of three superior officers.

The Commission found that while the misconduct was serious and not merely a practical joke, the hearing officer failed to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including the officers' unblemished service records, positive performance evaluations, and genuine remorse.

The Commission varied the penalty to a four-month demotion in rank.

Two off-duty police officers appealed findings of neglect of duty for failing to report a motor vehicle collision involving their police vehicle and a civilian vehicle.

The officers argued there was no clear evidence of an accident, the hearing was procedurally unfair, the charges were improperly laid, and the reporting order was unclear.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's credibility assessments were supported by evidence, the procedural limitations did not deny natural justice, the Chief of Police had ultimate statutory authority to lay charges, and the reporting order was clear.