R. Scriven

The appellant sought an interim stay of a Director's Order amending conditions in its Nutrient Management Strategy pending a full stay motion.

The Tribunal granted an interim stay for conditions requiring the submission of an up-to-date strategy and plan, finding no statutory bar and noting they were at the heart of the dispute.

However, the Tribunal refused to stay a condition requiring the appellant to ensure liquid prescribed materials do not travel off the farm field, as doing so could result in environmental impairment under s. 10(4) of the Nutrient Management Act.

Standard record-keeping conditions were also not stayed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for an unpaid commercial account for animal feed supplied to the defendant's dairy goat farm.

The defendant disputed the debt, alleging the feed was defective, caused health issues and death in his herd, and claimed an equitable set-off for lost profits.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff proved the debt and the 30% annual simple interest rate.

The court dismissed the defences, noting the defendant failed to provide expert evidence linking the feed to the herd's health issues or financial evidence to support the set-off claim.

The applicant sought costs against the Township of Norwich following a successful appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit a new veal barn.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while the Township did not act frivolously or vexatiously, its conduct was unreasonable because it completely abandoned its publicly declared rationale for refusing the application during the hearing.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant appealed the Township of Norwich's refusal to amend its Zoning By-law to increase the permitted nutrient units on his 28-acre agricultural property from 170 to 233.3, which would facilitate the construction of a new veal barn.

The application was supported by the County planner and had received approval from OMAFRA for the Nutrient Management Strategy, with no objections from other agencies.

The Township had refused the application based on an alleged promise by the applicant not to construct further buildings, and raised concerns about overdevelopment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence to substantiate the Township's concerns and concluding that the proposed expansion represented good land use planning consistent with provincial and county policies.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for property damage caused by flooding as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs' farm flooded in 2015 after the defendants altered their tile drainage system.

The plaintiffs petitioned the municipality for a municipal drain in 2016 and commenced their action in 2018 after learning the drain project was uncertain.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the limitation period was postponed under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act because the plaintiffs were engaged in an alternative administrative process (the municipal drain petition) that made litigation premature.