Michael Melling

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed its appeal of a Town's Official Plan Amendment without a hearing.

The Board had concluded it lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(50.1) of the Planning Act because the parts of the plan the moving party sought to modify were already in effect and were not dealt with in the Town Council's decision.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's interpretation of the Planning Act or its decision to dismiss the appeal without a full hearing on the merits.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Ontario Municipal Board's finding that an amendment to the City of London's Official Plan (OPA 403) was valid.

The appellants argued that OPA 403 impermissibly delegated authority by making a separate guideline determinative in designating woodlands as significant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the respondents that the Official Plan remains paramount and the City's discretion is not fettered by the guideline.

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board that approved a development application.

The applicants argued the approval effectively down-zoned a neighbouring property by creating a key lot, without a rezoning application being before the Board.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdiction to change zoning without following the procedures in the Planning Act, and concluding the issue was of sufficient importance to municipalities to warrant the attention of the full panel.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their land under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The appellants' land, located in a Natural Core Area and accessible only by private road, did not permit the construction of a single dwelling under the applicable zoning by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Board that the definition of a bed and breakfast establishment limits such use to a single dwelling that is the principal residence, which could not be built on the appellants' property.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review.

The respondents argued the application was moot because they had sought approval of a second site plan.

The Divisional Court rejected the mootness argument and held it had jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay the application.

The court ordered the application for judicial review stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal of the second site plan to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, noting that if the second site plan is approved, the application will become moot.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which held that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their lands under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Board had concluded that a bed and breakfast could only be established in an existing dwelling.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's restrictive interpretation of the Conservation Plan was open to serious debate and that the point of law warranted appellate attention given the legislation's broad impact.

The York Catholic District School Board appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision awarding Bernard Homes Ltd. and Crestvalley Homes Ltd. disturbance damages for lost builders' profits and solicitor-client costs following an expropriation.

The developers cross-appealed the OMB's dismissal of claims for lost developers' profits, reduction in land value, and lost executive time.

The Divisional Court allowed the School Board's appeal, setting aside the award for lost builders' profits and the solicitor-client costs order, finding that anticipated profits are not compensable as disturbance damages under the Expropriations Act.

The developers' cross-appeal was dismissed.