Raivo Uukkivi

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order concerning the management and transport of excess soils.

The parties submitted a finalized Procedural Order.

The Tribunal accepted the Procedural Order and scheduled a one-day motion hearing and a 10-day merit hearing to resolve the appeal.

The appellants sought a stay of a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to prepare a work plan to characterize liquid excess soil deposited on the subject property.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and compliance prior to a hearing constituted irreparable harm due to mootness, the balance of convenience favoured the Director and the public interest in protecting drinking water sources.

The motions for a stay were denied, but the Tribunal granted alternative relief by extending the compliance deadlines by nine weeks.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to prepare a work plan to characterize liquid excess soil at the subject property.

During a status update call, the appellants confirmed partial compliance with the Order and sought to stay the remaining items.

The Tribunal scheduled a stay motion hearing and set filing dates, noting that an interim stay order was unnecessary as the motion would be heard before the compliance dates for the remaining items.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of a development permit approval for a lot severance without a merit hearing.

The appellants failed to attend multiple Case Management Conferences, failed to provide Issues Lists as ordered, and the single Issues List provided did not disclose a valid planning justification under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officer found the appeals were without merit, frivolous, vexatious, and outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Township's denial of a minor variance required to permit residential development on a lot that fronts an unassumed public road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variance.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the Town of Erin's Development Charges By-law 24-35.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order, including an Issues List and Order of Evidence, to govern the proceedings leading up to a 9-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 3, 2026.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding a property containing an old tailings pond and waste rock site.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they had reached a potential settlement, subject to the appellant completing certain equipment setup to prevent groundwater contaminant exceedances.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference, which may be converted to a settlement hearing, and ordered that this matter not be heard together with a related file.

The appellant appealed Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director regarding contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a potential settlement but were awaiting the resolution of related files.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference, with the option to convert it to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring upgrades to a mine effluent treatment system and other environmental mitigation measures at an inactive graphite mine.

At a case management conference, the parties advised they were working towards a settlement but required extensions to several compliance deadlines in the Order.

On consent, the Tribunal granted the deadline extensions and ordered that the appeal be heard separately from another related file.

A further case management conference was scheduled to monitor progress or proceed as a settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Erin's Development Charges By-law 24-35.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing of the merits to commence on December 1, 2025, by video hearing.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order regarding the operation and maintenance of a mobile treatment unit at a former mine site.

At a case management conference, the parties advised that minutes of settlement had been signed, pending the completion of certain equipment installations.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeal be heard together with a related matter and scheduled a subsequent case management conference to monitor settlement progress.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring mitigation of mine effluent impacts at an inactive graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a potential settlement but required additional time to complete certain actions, including equipment installation and remediation fund allocation, before finalizing the settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2025, which may be converted to a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for appeals against the Town of Erin's Development Charges By-law 24-35.

The parties agreed to timelines for submitting an Issues List and a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing on the merits, and encouraged the parties to consider Tribunal-led mediation.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring upgrades to a mine effluent treatment system and other environmental mitigation measures at an inactive graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that settlement discussions were productive and requested a second CMC to either present a settlement proposal or schedule a merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for May 27, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Ontario Graphite Ltd. against Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The orders relate to contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing to commence on June 9, 2025, and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Environmental Penalty Orders issued for contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The appellant requested an adjournment because they had retained new counsel who needed time to review the file.

The respondent agreed to the request.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directed the parties to continue discussions to narrow the issues, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2025.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Condominium.

A motion for party status and an adjournment was brought by non-appellants.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the motion because a finalized Issues List had not yet been submitted, which is required to determine if the non-appellants can shelter under existing issues as mandated by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The parties were directed to submit a revised Issues List.

The appellant hotel operator appealed a Fire Marshal's decision rejecting its Alternative Solution Proposal (ASP) under the Fire Code.

The appellant proposed using off-site supervisory staff available 24/7 instead of on-site staff.

The Fire Safety Commission first determined that the acceptable solution in Sentence 2.8.2.2.(2) of the Fire Code requires supervisory staff to be physically on site when the building is occupied.

The Commission then found that the appellant's ASP did not meet or exceed the minimum performance level intended by the acceptable solution, as it relied primarily on existing building features and did not adequately compensate for the absence of immediate on-site response.

The appeal was dismissed and the Fire Marshal's order was confirmed.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding three related appeals concerning commercial and residential developments in the City of Owen Sound.

The appeals involved two zoning by-law amendments to permit mixed-use and commercial buildings, including a grocery store, and a consent application for an access easement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposals consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement agreements.

The appellant hotel operator brought a preliminary motion to determine the scope of its appeal before the Fire Safety Commission.

The appellant had submitted an alternative solution proposal after Toronto Fire Services rejected its initial fire safety plan, which allowed supervisory staff to be located off-site.

The appellant sought a ruling that the Commission had jurisdiction to determine whether its alternative solution proposal was actually an 'acceptable solution' under the Ontario Fire Code.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review the fire official's original opinion on the acceptable solution.

The Commission held its authority under s. 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 was limited to assessing the sufficiency of the alternative solution proposal as an alternative to the acceptable solution.