3 total
The Court of Appeal affirmed that challenges to municipal by-laws for non-conformity with official plans fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The appellant, Steve Maynard, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his application to quash five municipal by-laws.
The application judge had found that the challenge to the by-laws, based on their alleged inconsistency with a provincial policy statement and non-conformity with an official plan, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), now the Ontario Land Tribunal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding that it was plain and obvious that the LPAT (or its successor) had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under the Planning Act.
The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Appeal dismissed; Landlord and Tenant Board has jurisdiction to determine ownership of land lease homes.
The appellant landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the respondents' tenancies of two cottages for his children's use.
The respondents claimed they owned the cottages and only leased the land.
The Board determined it had jurisdiction to decide the ownership issue, found that the respondents owned the cottages, and dismissed the eviction applications.
The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's appeal, holding that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine ownership for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act, did not breach procedural fairness, and correctly concluded that the Act superseded the common law of fixtures.
Motion for leave to appeal LPAT decision striking issues from an Issues List dismissed as premature.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that struck 8 of 15 issues from a draft Issues List during a case management conference.
The moving parties argued they were denied procedural fairness.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that it was premature, without prejudice to the moving parties raising the issues at an appropriate time in the future.
