Steven J. O’Melia

The Appellant appealed the Township's passage of an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) that prohibits human habitation uses on properties zoned institutional.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2026.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Town proposed a revised hearing plan extending into 2027, which the Tribunal rejected due to its mandate for timely proceedings.

Instead, the Tribunal added ten hearing days in May 2026 and directed parties to advise if more time is needed for site-specific appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an unopposed request by one appellant to adjourn its appeals sine die to allow for seasonal fieldwork and testing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a written settlement hearing and a telephone conference call to address a revised phased hearing plan and proposed settlements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 23, 2025.

The amendment revised paragraph 6 to update the deadlines for certain appellants to submit revisions to their issues lists on consent.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant Party Status to three entities on consent, noting they must shelter under the appellants' issues.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 25-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to continue scoping issues and exploring settlement.

Multiple appeals were brought under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act regarding the adoption of a new town-wide Official Plan by the Town of Collingwood, as approved by the County of Simcoe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four requesting entities without objection.

The Tribunal deferred three requests for party status until the next CMC or until an Issues List is formalized, to allow the proposed parties to identify which issues they will shelter under pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A second CMC was scheduled to consider the deferred requests and further organize the appeals.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the parties' costs submissions following an appeal.

The court determined that it was not an appropriate case for costs and, accordingly, made no order for costs of the appeal.

The appellants, Fredrick and Patricia Kentner, appealed the summary dismissal of their first appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, which concerned convictions and a sentence for environmental offences related to unlawful fill operations.

The appeal was based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by their paralegal and errors in the original conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no ineffective assistance as the appellants' failure to pay fines (a mandatory condition for appeal) was a deliberate choice unrelated to the paralegal's conduct, and a waiver application would have had no prospect of success.

The court also found no merit in the conviction appeal, affirming the trial judge's reliance on regulatory maps for jurisdiction, and no basis to interfere with the sentence, which included a $25,000 fine and a property rehabilitation order.

The applicant purchased a property to operate a salvage yard and sought a declaration that its use was a lawful non-conforming use under s. 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act.

The respondent municipality argued that the previous owner had discontinued the salvage yard use, thereby losing the non-conforming status.

The court found that the previous owner had continuously conducted salvage operations as part of its business, maintaining the legal non-conforming use.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's more intensive salvage operation did not constitute a wholly different use that would extinguish the non-conforming status.

The application for a declaration was granted.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a 1975 cost-sharing provision in a Subdivision Agreement between a developer's assignee (appellant) and a municipality (respondent).

The appellant sought payment for infrastructure costs from the municipality, arguing that the provision was triggered by a new subdivision on adjacent lands.

The application judge found that the cost-sharing obligation was only triggered if the adjacent lands derived a benefit from the appellant's infrastructure, and no such benefit was proven.

The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, agreeing that the agreement, when read holistically and with commercial sense, required a benefit to be conferred for the cost-sharing to apply.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant developer sought to enforce a cost sharing provision in a 1975 subdivision agreement against the respondent municipality, arguing the municipality was required to collect a proportionate share of servicing costs from a new adjacent development.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cost sharing obligation was only triggered if the new development connected to or benefited from the installed services, which it did not.

The court also dismissed the applicant's alternative claim for unjust enrichment, holding that the subdivision agreement provided a juristic reason for the municipality's benefit.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' motion and application challenging the issuance of building permits, the respondent municipality and its Chief Building Officer sought costs.

The applicants argued for a mixed result and that parties should bear their own costs, but the court found the respondents were successful on the majority of issues.

Applying the principles of indemnity and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondents at $30,000.

The appellants, Jason Geil and Geil Style Enterprises Inc., appealed a finding of contempt for violating a consent order by dumping fill on wetlands.

They argued the motion judge erred by relying on hearsay, making a finding without evidence of the precise timing of the fill, and accepting a late-filed affidavit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the submissions.

The court held that the motion judge relied on firsthand evidence, the precise date of the fill deposit was not material as it occurred after the order, and accepting the late affidavit was within the judge's discretion.

The finding of contempt was entitled to deference.

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration that building permits issued for a neighbouring townhouse development did not comply with a zoning by-law restricting development to one storey.

The applicants also brought a motion to amend their application to include an appeal under the Building Code Act and to stay construction.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the applicants failed to appeal the permits within the statutory 20-day period and did not provide reasonable grounds for an extension.

The request for a stay of construction was also dismissed as the applicants failed to meet the test for an interlocutory injunction.

However, the court granted an order requiring the town to enforce a settlement agreement restricting the use of adjacent municipally-owned lands.

The court issued an amended case management endorsement addressing procedural issues for a judicial review application sought by the appellant.

The endorsement struck the March 3, 2017 proceedings related to setting a date for the judicial review application and vacated the April 18, 2017 return date.

The parties were directed to contact the trial coordinator to set a new hearing date before another judge to consider the procedural issues.

The court emphasized the principle of finality and the remediation order from September 30, 2016, which was determinative of the underlying appeal.

The self-represented appellant appeared before the court to set a date for a judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a building permit revocation and zoning non-compliance.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the technicality that it was commenced under the wrong court file number.

The court denied the request for dismissal, ordered the court office to assign a new file number, directed the production of a video recording of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, and clarified the remediation timetable from a previous order.

The applicants sought leave to appeal their convictions for building a farm roadway in a regulated wetland without a permit from the Conservation Authority.

They argued that the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act immunized them from prosecution for farming activities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed legal question had no merit, as the Provincial Policy Statement only applies to the exercise of authority affecting a planning matter and does not override the Conservation Authority's jurisdiction to regulate wetlands.

An elector applied for a declaration that a municipal mayor breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council closed-session discussion concerning potential defamation litigation related to online blog posts.

The applicant sought disqualification from office and restitution of municipal legal fees allegedly incurred for the mayor’s benefit.

The court first considered the six‑week limitation period under s. 9 of the Act and held that the applicant had sufficient knowledge of a potential breach when a newspaper article reported the litigation and municipal funding of legal costs.

Because the application was commenced well after the limitation period expired, it was statute‑barred.

In obiter, the court held that even if the limitation period had not expired, the evidence did not establish that the mayor had a pecuniary interest at the time of the council meeting or that litigation in her personal name had been decided.

The Town of Collingwood sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed an appeal respecting the Education Development Charge By-laws of two school boards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Town failed to identify any arguable error of law in the Board's decision, as the issues raised primarily involved questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that permitted the responding party to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one in a heritage conservation district.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised were factual rather than questions of law, lacked general legal importance, and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.