Marc Kemerer

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Township's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a sand and gravel extraction operation.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Friends of Ball’s Bridge and Little Lakes and participant status to two individuals.

A 10-day merits hearing was scheduled for September 2023, and the Procedural Order was approved.

The respondents in a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) application brought a motion to stay or adjourn the CAT proceeding pending the resolution of a related application they filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The underlying dispute involved the condominium corporation's enforcement of breed and weight restrictions against a resident's service dog.

The Tribunal applied the factors for staying multiple proceedings and found that the CAT application was ready to proceed, the HRTO application had not yet been served, and the CAT had jurisdiction to resolve the human rights issues.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,000 following a minor variance appeal.

The Applicant argued that the Township's conduct was unreasonable and vexatious due to differences in opinion, failed settlement efforts, and the Township planner's lack of objectivity.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the proceedings were normally contentious and that the Applicant failed to demonstrate unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a property in Mississauga, specifically contesting a reduced interior side yard setback of 1.91 metres.

The appellants argued the proposed two-storey dwelling was out of character for the neighbourhood and would create privacy and overlook issues.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the neighbourhood character was changing, the design mitigated privacy concerns, and the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.

The applicants appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to allow the construction of a detached garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised application with a reduced garage size and increased side yard setback.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to permit the replacement of an existing single-storey condominium unit with a 1.5-storey unit.

The variance sought to increase the maximum permitted floor area from 80 square metres to 114.2 square metres.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, preferring the applicant's expert planning evidence that the proposal maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor in nature, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's new Official Plan, Official Plan Amendment 119, and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal approved a Master Procedural Order setting out a phased hearing plan and approved the Procedural Order for the Phase 1A hearing on agriculture issues, scheduling it for April 2023.

The plaintiffs, CRH Canada Group Inc. and intervenor Nelson Aggregates, sought an interlocutory injunction against the Ontario Aggregate Trucking Association, Ontario Dumptruck Association, and several individuals.

The defendants were blocking access to the plaintiffs' business facilities to compel an increase in haulage rates and impose a fuel surcharge.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test, finding a serious issue to be tried in nuisance and unlawful interference with private property rights, irreparable harm due to economic impact and difficulty in collecting damages, and that the balance of convenience strongly favored the plaintiffs.

The defendants did not appear or file materials.

The injunction was granted, prohibiting blockades and interference with access, while affirming the defendants' right to lawful, peaceful protest.

The applicant, Hydro One Networks Inc., sought a declaration of a permanent easement over a portion of the respondent's land to access its existing transmission line easement, based on claims of prescriptive easement or lost modern grant.

The respondent disputed the continuous use and asserted that Hydro One had sought permission.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Hydro One failed to prove its use was "as of right" due to evidence of seeking permission, and that its infrequent use (once a year at most) did not meet the "continuous" requirement for a prescriptive easement.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a provisional consent to sever a shoreline access parcel.

The appellants, who owned a cottage 10 km away, appealed the consent.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' representative and their planning witness had a collective interest in thwarting the severance.

The Tribunal disqualified the planning witness due to a lack of objectivity and found the appeal disclosed no legitimate land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal under section 53(31) of the Planning Act, finding it to be an abuse of process, a delay tactic, and vexatious.

The appellant property owner brought a motion to file a late appeal of its property assessment for the 2021 taxation year.

The appellant argued it did not receive the notice of assessment and only became aware of the assessment increase when the municipality's monthly bank withdrawal for property taxes increased significantly.

The Assessment Review Board found that the appellant met all three requirements of Rule 26(b) of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as the appellant was entitled to receive the notice, did not receive it, and filed the appeal within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessment.

The motion was granted and the late appeal was accepted.

The appellants appealed the returned value of their residential property for the 2021 taxation year.

MPAC initially assessed the property at $1,918,000 and later sought an increase to $2,046,000, while the appellants argued for a value of $1,300,000.

The Assessment Review Board evaluated the comparable properties presented by both parties, rejecting several due to differences in location, age, and size.

By averaging the time-adjusted sale prices of the two most comparable properties, the Board determined the current value of the subject property to be $1,638,000.

The Board found no evidence to support a further reduction for equitable assessment.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and consents to sever four new residential lots.

During a Telephone Conference Call, the Tribunal received a status update indicating the Township opposes the applications.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit an Issues List and a condensed Procedural Order ahead of the scheduled three-day hearing.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal addressed a request for an adjournment based on a pending disposition letter, confirmed there were no concerns with certain lands remaining within the Lindsay urban settlement boundary, extended the deadline for the Agreed Statement of Facts, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2022.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed seven-storey mixed-use building, the Tribunal granted party and participant status to several individuals and a ratepayers' association.

The Tribunal resolved disputes over the Procedural Order, ruling that a minor error in the Notice of CMC did not invalidate it, directing a self-represented party to bring his preliminary motion regarding the scope of expert evidence by a specific date or face a bar on raising the issue, and determining that a party's residential address need not be published in the Procedural Order.

The parties requested a further Case Management Conference (CMC) to address details of phasing and outstanding matters in the Procedural Order regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 24, 2022.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment application, the parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal considered the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal struck an issue regarding a right-of-way from the Issues List, finding that easements and rights-of-way are matters of private law outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a four-day hearing and a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and various Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal granted a motion for disclosure, allowing information pertaining to servicing capacity to be entered into evidence at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied a request by certain appellants to postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue, directing that the hearing proceed as originally scheduled.

Finally, the Tribunal approved the modified Official Plan Schedules A-2, A-4, and A-5, and finalized the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township of The Archipelago's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and consents to sever four new residential lots.

At a Telephone Conference Call, the Tribunal received a status update, noting the Township had not yet taken a position but the parties were engaging in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a 3-day video hearing and a further case management conference, and finalized the list of participants.

The City of Burlington brought a motion during a Case Management Conference to release the freeze on certain lands under an Interim Control By-law (ICBL).

The ICBL remained in effect due to appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) that applied only to a specific area near the Burlington GO Station.

The Tribunal found, based on uncontested planning evidence, that the ZBA did not apply to the lands outside its specific area.

Consequently, pursuant to s. 38(6.1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal's finding invoked the release of the ICBL for all remaining lands outside the ZBA area, allowing prior zoning to resume effect.