Laura Dean

The Township of Oro-Medonte and a ratepayers' alliance appealed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that repealed a zoning by-law amendment aimed at regulating short-term rentals.

The Tribunal had found the by-law created a new land use prohibition that was overbroad and not in the public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal afforded procedural fairness, correctly interpreted the existing zoning by-law, and made no error of law in concluding the amendment did not represent good planning.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals regarding a flooded access road.

The Township of Georgian Bluffs and the Ministry of Transportation appealed a lower court decision that found the road public, obligated the Township to maintain it, and ordered the Ministry to restore culverts and indemnify the Township.

The Crown's appeal was allowed due to procedural unfairness, as no relief was sought against the Ministry in the original application.

The Township's appeal was dismissed, affirming the public nature of the road based on historical statute labour and common law dedication and acceptance, and upholding its obligation to restore the road.

The Chief Building Official issued building permits for a body rub parlour in a specific zoning area.

A competing business appealed the decision to the Superior Court, where the appeal judge rescinded the permits, finding the CBO's interpretation of the word 'front' in the zoning by-law to be unreasonable.

The CBO and the permit holder appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to properly apply the reasonableness standard of review.

The CBO's interpretation of the by-law was reasonable.

The applicants appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to refuse a building permit for an already constructed 21-room building, which they labelled as a "single family dwelling" but was designed and previously operated as a hotel.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the CBO was entitled to look beyond the label and consider the building's design, layout, and prior use to determine its intended purpose.

The CBO's conclusion that the building contravened applicable zoning by-laws for a single-family dwelling was deemed reasonable and correct.

The applicant, a body rub parlour operator, appealed the Chief Building Official's (CBO) decision to issue a building permit to a competitor (the respondent) in the same building.

The appeal concerned the interpretation of a zoning by-law that prohibited certain commercial uses on properties "fronting" on the west side of Victoria Park Avenue for a depth of 60m.

The building's main entrance was on a side street, but its side wall ran along Victoria Park Avenue.

The court found the applicant had standing as a business competitor and that the CBO's decision should be reviewed on a reasonableness standard.

Interpreting "front" in the context of the by-law's policy to organize land uses along the main thoroughfare, the court concluded that the building "fronted" on Victoria Park Avenue.

Therefore, the respondent's body rub parlour was not a permitted use in that zone, and the building permit was improperly issued.