Leo F. Longo

A municipality sought an order requiring demolition of a waterfront structure constructed on Lake Rosseau, asserting that the respondent had built a boathouse with living accommodations in violation of zoning and planning by-laws.

The respondent argued the structure was a water aerodrome registered with Transport Canada and therefore immune from municipal regulation under the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity.

The court examined the chronology of events, the respondent’s intentions, and the actual use and design of the structure.

It concluded the aerodrome registration was an attempt to circumvent municipal zoning restrictions and that the structure functioned as a boathouse rather than an aeronautical facility.

The court held that municipal planning and zoning laws applied and ordered demolition of the structure.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that upheld interim control by-laws and zoning amendments restricting short-term accommodations in the Town of Blue Mountains.

The moving parties argued the Board erred in its interpretation of the Planning Act, the Human Rights Code, and the doctrine of 'people zoning', and that it denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any question of law, concluding the by-laws regulated land use rather than personal characteristics and were a justified planning response.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that upheld the validity of the respondent municipality's interim control by-law.

The moving party argued that the municipality failed to meet the statutory requirements of section 38(1) of the Planning Act because it acted on staff advice that further planning studies were unnecessary.

The court found that the issue of compliance with section 38 gave rise to serious legal debate and granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The appellant landowner and the intervening tribunal appealed a Divisional Court decision that had set aside a review decision of the municipal tribunal concerning a ravine control by-law.

The Court of Appeal held that s. 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act confers broad review authority, including the power to reconsider and substitute a prior decision, and that the tribunal's internal “manifest error” guideline did not narrow the statute.

The court further held that the review panel acted within jurisdiction in applying longstanding planning policy against effectively sterilizing privately owned land without acquisition or compelling justification.

It also rejected the argument that an express finding of conformity with the official plan under s. 24 of the Planning Act was required.

The City of Barrie applied to the Ontario Municipal Board to annex parts of neighbouring townships.

During the hearing, the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs submitted a letter stating the government's policy on the projected population of Barrie.

The Board ruled it was bound by this policy and refused to allow the objectors to cross-examine the government representative who delivered the letter.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the Board erred in denying the objectors the opportunity to cross-examine the representative, as the relevant statutes established a clear right to meet the case against them by cross-examination.