Timothy C. Marc

The moving party, the City of Ottawa, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $25,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered an expedited appeal process due to an administrative error that had delayed the leave motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The City of Ottawa sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 117.

The City argued the Board erred in law by concluding that an Official Plan cannot be specific with respect to performance standards, such as height limits, and by failing to consider the evidence of the City's witnesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's decision to prefer flexible policies over prescriptive wording in this specific context was reasonable and within its jurisdiction.

The Court also found no error in the Board's treatment of the evidence.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that excluded his lands from the expansion of the urban boundary of the City of Ottawa.

He argued the Board erred in law by imposing an additional noise study condition, accepting the City's noise expert evidence, and awarding zero points for distance to a mixed-use centre.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Board's determinations were findings of fact or mixed fact and law, and there was no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Board's decision.

The City of Ottawa sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that repealed Section 3 of its Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.

The Board had found that the by-law improperly restricted property owners' rights to continue legal non-conforming uses after voluntary repairs or renovations, contrary to section 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court determined the applicable standard of review was reasonableness and found no error in the Board's conclusion that the by-law frustrated the normal evolution of legal non-conforming uses.

Leave to appeal was dismissed, though the parties consented to restore certain unrelated subsections of the by-law.