Sunny Zhai

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A Pit Below Water licence.

Several objectors were granted participant status on consent.

A motion to remove two objectors was granted on consent due to their absence.

A procedural order and issues list were approved, and a four-day merit hearing was scheduled for June 2026.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding the applicable legislative and policy framework for a subdivision development proposal.

The LPAT had determined that the current policy regime applied, relying on the retroactive application of s. 22.1 of the Planning Act to establish the request date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the LPAT's determination involved questions of mixed fact and law, and that the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the court's attention.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever a new lot containing an existing two-storey single dwelling and retain the remnant parcel as an Agricultural Purposes Only lot.

The appellant argued that the dwelling was a residence surplus to a farming operation resulting from a farm consolidation and that the timing requirements for severance should be applied flexibly.

The Hearing Officers found that the new dwelling, built decades after the original dwelling was demolished and in a different location, was not equivalent to the original dwelling.

Furthermore, the clear and unambiguous 10-year occupation and 2-year application timing rules in the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Regional Official Plan were not met.

The appeal was dismissed and the NEC's decision was confirmed.

The Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Ontario Heritage Trust appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a property located within a sacred cultural landscape.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving the purchase of the subject property by the Chippewas of Nawash.

The Hearing Officers confirmed the conditional approval with a revised expiration date, as agreed by the parties, and the appeals were withdrawn.

Blueridge Cedar Ltd. appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct an agricultural accessory building on a landlocked property.

The property was accessible only by an unimproved right-of-way over steep and environmentally sensitive terrain.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed development did not meet the requirement for frontage onto a public road under the municipal official plan, and therefore failed to accord with the development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.

The moving party, an outdoor recreational alliance, sought leave to appeal its convictions under the Public Lands Act and the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act arising from a public protest where members cleared a decommissioned road on Crown land.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal did not raise questions of law alone, nor were they essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice as required by section 131 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to construct a 33-car parking lot for visitors to the Cheltenham Badlands and the Bruce Trail.

The appellant argued the parking lot was not a permitted use and would cause environmental harm, asserting that a full Environmental Impact Study and master plan were required.

The Hearing Officers found that the parking lot is a permitted use as a Bruce Trail access point and satisfies all relevant Development Criteria under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision to issue the development permit was confirmed.

In an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellants brought several procedural motions.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion for further disclosure but granted summonses for two Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry employees to testify regarding species at risk.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion to adjourn the hearing, finding it unnecessary to secure a fair determination.

The Tribunal ruled on multiple motions to exclude reply witness statements, admitting those that properly responded to new evidence and excluding those that merely bolstered previous evidence or introduced new issues.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed a motion for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Members' prior statements or their conduct during the hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on race, ancestry, and other grounds after a Conservation Officer confiscated his traps for lacking a trapping licence.

The applicant claimed he was engaging in traditional trapping as a member of an Algonquin First Nation.

The respondents requested to defer the application pending the completion of a related Provincial Offences Act prosecution in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding that the court proceeding and the application were based on the same facts and raised the same issue of aboriginal rights, creating a potential for inconsistent findings if they proceeded concurrently.

The Ministry of Natural Resources appealed an Engineer's report under section 40 of the Drainage Act, which apportioned one-third of the costs of an abandoned drainage project to the Ministry.

The project, intended to replace a beaver dam with a permanent spillway to control water levels in Deer Lake, was deemed impractical by the Engineer due to the Ministry's confusing and inconsistent requirements for location approval under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Tribunal found that the Engineer had broad jurisdiction under section 40 to determine who should pay the fees and charges, and that the apportionment to the Ministry was reasonable given its misleading communications that resulted in wasted time and expense.

The appeal was dismissed.