Kevin M. Thompson

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a residential dwelling with reduced Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from neighbouring livestock facilities.

The subject property is zoned Agricultural but is unsuitable for farming due to its topography.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the applicants and neighbours are Old Order Mennonites accustomed to farming odours.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions requiring a development agreement with an odour warning clause and written acknowledgements from neighbouring farm owners.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her motion to void an eviction order under s. 74(11) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenant argued that because she was on a month-to-month tenancy, s. 74(12), which limits a tenant to one such motion 'during the period of the tenant's tenancy agreement', reset every month.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenant's interpretation would lead to an absurd result and render the statutory limitation meaningless, as a month-to-month tenancy is a continuation of the same tenancy agreement.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to ensure proper cover over fibreglass waste buried in a gravel pit.

After several adjournments to allow the appellant to complete the required work, the Director was satisfied that the appellant had complied with the substance of the order.

The appellant subsequently withdrew its appeal on consent.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring proper cover over buried fibreglass waste.

The parties agreed that additional time was needed to complete on-site work to achieve full compliance.

The Tribunal found that the statutory prohibitions against granting a stay under the Environmental Protection Act did not apply.

The continuation of the stay was granted on consent until November 17, 2017.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring the establishment of proper cover over buried fibreglass waste.

The parties consented to the stay to allow for further on-site work and review by the Ministry.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that sections 143(2) and (3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not prevent the stay and granted the continuation on consent until September 30, 2017.

The appellant requested a continuation of a stay of a Director's Order requiring the establishment of proper cover over fibreglass waste buried in a gravel pit.

The Director consented to the stay to allow for the review of a recently prepared report.

The Tribunal found that sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act did not prevent the stay, as the order did not require monitoring, recording, or reporting, and the stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment.

The Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay on consent.

The appellant requested a stay of a Director's Order requiring it to establish proper cover over buried fibreglass waste on its property.

The stay was requested on consent to allow the parties additional time for investigations and negotiations to resolve the appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the order was not an order to monitor, record or report under s. 143(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act, and that a brief stay would not result in danger to health, safety, or the environment under s. 143(3).

The Tribunal granted the consent stay until July 31, 2017.

Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 161 and John Curtis Redmond each brought applications concerning alleged breaches of condominium rules and common element maintenance issues, specifically regarding surface drainage and grading.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement, resolving all substantive disputes but reserving the question of costs for judicial determination.

The court declined to award costs to either party, emphasizing that where parties settle all substantive issues without judicial adjudication, the court should be reluctant to conduct a "paper trial" on the merits solely for the purpose of determining costs.