Katyrina Zielinski

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not provide a costs outline.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its October 10, 2024 decision regarding a hearing of necessity.

The corrections updated the property description, the details of the rapid transit project, and the specific land area requirements for partial acquisition, temporary construction easements, and a permanent hydro easement.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding the City's proposed partial expropriation of their property for a bus rapid transit project.

The City sought a permanent partial taking for a daylight triangle and hydro easement, as well as a temporary construction easement.

The owners argued the taking would negatively impact their ability to rent the property and reduce their front yard.

The Tribunal accepted the City's expert engineering evidence, finding the project serves the public interest by improving transportation capacity and infrastructure.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed expropriation is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives, noting that the owners' concerns regarding property impacts should be addressed through compensation rather than the necessity hearing.

The applicant sought a Class A licence to operate a quarry on lands currently licenced as a gravel pit.

The Minister referred the application to the Tribunal following objections from neighbouring property owners regarding environmental, water, and blasting impacts.

The Tribunal considered the criteria under section 12(1) of the Aggregate Resources Act and accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence of the applicant that the proposed quarry would not cause adverse impacts to the natural environment, water resources, or nearby communities.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to issue the licence subject to the prescribed conditions.

Grainboys Holdings Inc. brought a motion for costs against the appellants, Bill and Frank Pearce, following the dismissal of their appeal concerning a site-specific zoning by-law amendment.

Grainboys sought full indemnity costs, alleging the appeal was maintained for an improper purpose, or alternatively, partial costs for unreasonable conduct.

The Tribunal found no improper purpose but concluded that the appellants acted unreasonably and frivolously by failing to drop air quality and noise issues in a timely manner and by unexpectedly declining to call their only witness without notice.

The Tribunal awarded Grainboys costs fixed at $12,500.

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate the construction of a grain milling, seed-cleaning, and blending facility on prime agricultural land.

The appellants argued that the proposed use was industrial and did not conform to the applicable official plans or constitute an agriculture-related use under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal found that the official plans, as amended by site-specific amendments passed after the by-law, applied to the analysis and that the Clergy principle did not operate to restrict the Tribunal to former policies.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed facility constituted an agriculture-related use, conformed to the amended official plans, and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 699-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. over the applicant's objections.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List prior to a second Case Management Conference scheduled for February 2023.

The applicant appealed conditions of draft plan approval for a subdivision to facilitate a townhouse development.

The contentious conditions required the applicant to obtain concurrence from CN Railway for drainage alterations, enter into an agreement with CN, and grant CN an environmental easement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that these conditions inappropriately delegated approval authority to a private company and were not reasonable land use planning matters.

The Tribunal ordered the removal of the contentious conditions and revised the clearance condition accordingly.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment relating to driveway widths, trailer parking, and open storage.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the properties at 11 and 33 Perdue Court.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed site-specific amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Region of Peel Official Plan, and Town of Caledon Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon zoning exceptions.