Kelly Nenniger

The appellants appealed the denial of a minor variance and the refusal of a development permit to replace an existing deck with a larger, engineered deck located at a 0m setback within a dynamic beach hazard area on Lake Huron.

The appellants argued that existing timber cribs mitigated the dynamic beach processes, making the development safe.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding that the proposal was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, or local planning policies, which strictly prohibit new development in dynamic beach hazard areas regardless of existing shoreline protection.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment, official plan amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a proposed residential development in Woodstock.

The statutory parties advised that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal considered requests for Party and Participant status.

John Bell's request for Party status was denied as there were no remaining issues to shelter under given the settlement, and his participation as a Party would cause prejudice through increased hearing length and cost; he was granted Participant status instead.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to 85 other requestors, ordered the matters to be heard together, and scheduled a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a condominium development of single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the number of dwellings from 26 to 25 and modifying site regulations to address municipal and neighbour concerns.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial and local planning policies and allowed the appeal, amending the zoning by-law accordingly.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of conditions of draft plan approval for a vacant land condominium.

The municipality indicated its intent to bring a motion disputing the standing of the appeal due to the lapsing of the draft plan extension.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to hear the municipality's motion, while the parties continue discussions to potentially resolve the appeal.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal from the Town's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment for a 26-unit residential development.

A self-represented party requested a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that proper public notice was not provided because the notice allegedly mischaracterized the existing zoning.

The Tribunal found that a disagreement over the interpretation of the zoning by-law did not constitute a failure to provide notice and dismissed the request.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant and the Town had reached a settlement, scheduled a two-day hearing on the merits, and approved the procedural directions and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical omission in its July 26, 2024 decision.

The amendment adds Schedule A, which contains the Procedural Order governing the organization and schedule of the upcoming hearing for appeals related to an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a Heritage Alteration Application for properties in the Town of Kingsville.

At a Case Management Conference regarding site-specific and town-wide Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to King Devco Inc. for the town-wide appeals.

Participant status was also granted to two individuals without objection.

A 10-day hearing of the merits was scheduled to commence on December 2, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that prohibits short-term rental accommodations in the Municipality of Lakeshore.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident, approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a three-day merit hearing to commence on October 16, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment for a 26-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to one resident and participant status to several others on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the issues list and procedural order.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that prohibited short-term rental accommodations.

At the first case management conference, the parties indicated they would seek non-tribunal-led mediation to resolve or reduce the issues in dispute.

The tribunal scheduled a second case management conference to allow time for mediation and potential settlement.

The appellant sought a declaration that a zoning by-law provision limiting gross leasable commercial floor area for a "community shopping centre" to 4,645 m² (50,000 ft²) did not apply to developments with five or fewer separate spaces for lease or occupancy.

The appellant argued that "community shopping centre" must be a type of "shopping centre" as defined in the by-law, which requires six or more separated spaces.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that "community shopping centre" was a distinct term from "shopping centre" and that the provision applied regardless of the number of units.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's contextual interpretation of the by-law in light of the Official Plan.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Fire Safety Commission decision that confirmed four Review Orders regarding fire code compliance at its cheese manufacturing facility.

The applicant argued that the Commission made errors of fact and law concerning spray-foam insulation and an inoperable sprinkler system, relied on false evidence, and that new evidence was available.

The Commission dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues already decided, failed to prove false evidence was relied upon, and presented a letter that was already in evidence at the original hearing.

The appellant appealed four Review Orders confirming Inspection Orders that required the appellant to apply thermal protection to spray-foam insulation and to repair or decommission an inoperable sprinkler system.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the spray-foam insulation required thermal protection under the Building Code to ensure fire safety.

The Commission also held that the Fire Code requires the sprinkler system to be maintained in operating condition unless decommissioned through an approved process, regardless of how long it had been inoperable.

The Review Orders were confirmed with amended compliance dates.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the interpretation of a zoning by-law provision concerning the maximum gross leasable commercial floor area for a "community shopping centre" on its property.

The applicant argued that the 50,000 square foot limitation only applied if the development contained six or more separated spaces, based on the general definition of "Shopping Centre" in the by-law.

The respondent municipality argued that the limitation applied to any project irrespective of the number of units.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the definition of "Shopping Centre" did not apply to "community shopping centre" in the specific context of the by-law and Official Plan, and that the size limitation was intended to apply to the square footage of a structure accommodating a community shopping area, not based on the number of units.

The appellant died after leave to appeal a $95 traffic ticket was granted.

The appellant's counsel moved to substitute a personal representative to continue the appeal, while the municipal prosecutor sought to abate the appeal due to mootness.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise its jurisdiction to continue the appeal, noting that the matter had no practical consequences for the estate, was not evasive of review, and lacked a sufficient factual record to decide an issue with province-wide implications.

The appeal was abated and the judgment below was stayed.

The applicant was convicted of speeding after mailing a notice of intention to appear that was received after the 15-day period stipulated on the Offence Notice.

The applicant sought leave to appeal, arguing that under Rule 4 of Regulation 200, the calculation of time meant his notice was filed on time, and that the Offence Notice failed to comply with the Provincial Offences Act by not specifying the manner of delivery.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on these two grounds, finding they raised questions of law of general application concerning the calculation of time limits and the sufficiency of prescribed forms.