Leo F. Longo

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to recognize two existing housekeeping units and attached sundecks with reduced setbacks.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local lake association and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The applicant Town sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision finding that a proposed cemetery was in the public interest under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

The Tribunal had bifurcated the hearing, leaving the related site plan appeal under the Planning Act to be determined separately.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review as premature, holding that the Tribunal's process was not complete and that courts should not interfere in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1334281 Ontario Limited against the City of Pickering's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several local residents on consent.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled for April 2026, and a Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the procedures leading up to and including a one-day hearing scheduled for September 12, 2025.

The underlying appeal, brought under subsection 51(43) of the Planning Act, concerns conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision, specifically requesting an extension and a revised layout to incorporate a stormwater management plan.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of a combined dock and overwater boathouse on a waterfront property.

The Township did not participate in the hearing.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the unique topography and size of the property warranted the amendment, and that the redevelopment would preserve the visual aesthetics and natural appearance of the shoreline.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Temagami Barge Limited and Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel from an order restraining their use of property for 13 uses found to contravene municipal zoning by-laws.

The court upheld the application judge’s findings on legal non-conforming use, the treatment of expert evidence, and the appropriateness of proceeding by application.

The court also found no error in the award of costs to the municipality, noting that leave to appeal costs was not sought as required.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $25,000 to the municipality.

The appellants, Temagami Barge Limited and its principal, Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel, moved for a stay of a permanent injunction issued by the Superior Court of Justice.

The injunction prohibited certain commercial activities on their property due to violations of municipal zoning by-laws.

Applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for a stay pending appeal, the Court of Appeal found a serious issue for appeal but determined that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as their evidence was vague and harm to third parties was generally irrelevant.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured denying the stay, as the public interest in enforcing municipal by-laws outweighed the appellants' unproven claims of harm.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the appeal was directed to be expedited.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Temagami sought a permanent injunction and other orders to enforce its zoning bylaws against Temagami Barge Limited (TBL) and Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel, alleging unlawful commercial uses on Crown land zoned for "Special Management Area (SMA) Zone (Crown Land)".

TBL argued its uses were lawful non-conforming or permissible expansions under the Planning Act.

The court found most of TBL's commercial uses (marina, retail fuel, commercial docking, barge rental, retail aggregate sales, sewage waste disposal) unlawful, not qualifying as lawful non-conforming uses or reasonable expansions of prior industrial uses.

The court granted a permanent injunction against these unlawful uses but denied the request for partial closure of the property and removal of sea-can containers and an office trailer, finding insufficient evidence of public nuisance or contravention for the latter.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed its motion for directions.

The moving party had argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make a prior consent order regarding a zoning by-law amendment because the relevant 'bonusing regime' under the Planning Act had been repealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed the motion on procedural grounds because it should have been brought as a request for review under Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules and was out of time.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding various appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for interim policies of Major Transit Station Areas.

The parties requested a second CMC to allow time to narrow the Issues List and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for May 30, 2024, to proceed by video.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 25, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Temagami brought a motion seeking leave to file an additional affidavit (Picard Affidavit) after cross-examinations were completed, pursuant to Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The affidavit contained evidence regarding the historical land use of the property, discovered during an additional search requested by the respondents.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing it was fresh evidence and would cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court granted leave, finding that the proposed evidence was relevant, responded to matters raised during cross-examinations, would not result in non-compensable prejudice, and the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for its late discovery.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local group, approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and directed the parties to contact the Case Coordinator for a mediation assessment.

The respondents in an application for a permanent injunction regarding zoning by-law compliance brought a motion to compel the applicant municipality to answer undertakings and refusals from a cross-examination.

The court found that all requested items had either been satisfied by the municipality or were protected by litigation privilege, specifically a planning memorandum and notes on inspection photographs prepared for counsel.

The motion was dismissed, though the court ordered a brief supplementary affidavit to confirm the timing and purpose of the photograph notes.

The Barge Respondents (Temagami Barge Limited and Dashiel Lowery Delarosbel) brought a motion to transfer an application from Toronto to North Bay.

The applicant, Corporation of the Municipality of Temagami, opposed this transfer, advocating for Haileybury due to significantly shorter hearing delays.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the motion to transfer to North Bay.

Instead, the court ordered the application to be transferred to Haileybury, finding it more geographically appropriate for the community and witnesses, and crucial for securing the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of the proceeding by avoiding further delay.

Costs were awarded to the Municipality of Temagami.

The applicant appealed the County's refusal to process a Site Plan Approval application for a proposed townhouse development.

The County had deemed the application premature due to insufficient municipal drinking water capacity.

Prior to the scheduled three-day hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal of promising settlement discussions.

The Tribunal converted the hearing into a Case Management Conference, released the remaining hearing days, and scheduled a one-day hearing to address any remaining issues or approve a settlement.

The appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's passing of Zoning By-law No. 0121-2020, which introduced new office zones and permitted uses.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a draft Zoning By-law Amendment to the Tribunal.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement and draft amendment were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and maintained the intent of the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant sought consent to sever a surplus farmhouse dwelling from an agricultural parcel.

The dwelling had been demolished due to severe tenant hoarding and safety issues prior to the application.

The local Committee of Adjustment approved the severance, and a neighbouring farmer appealed, arguing that because the dwelling was demolished, it could not meet the strict policy definition of a 'habitable' surplus residence under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and approved the consent, finding that a strict literal interpretation of the policy would frustrate its intent, which is to protect agricultural lands.

The severance maintained the agricultural use of the retained parcel and the rural residential character of the severed parcel.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant for the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality and participant status to five individuals, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal also issued procedural directions and scheduled a two-day hearing on the merits.

The applicants (Builder) brought a motion under s. 25(7) of the Building Code Act to stay an Order to Comply (OTC) issued by the Chief Building Official (CBO) of the Town of Midland, pending the outcome of a related Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) appeal initiated by the respondent homeowners.

The OTC required the removal and replacement of stucco on a newly built house.

The CBO supported the stay, while the homeowners opposed it.

The court found that the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay did not apply because the court was merely deciding not to exercise its jurisdiction until a later time.

Applying the test for a temporary stay pending another proceeding, the court found substantial overlap of issues, shared factual background, and that a stay would prevent duplication of resources.

The motion for a stay was granted, and the OTC appeal was adjourned pending the LAT appeal outcome.