Matthew Hodgson

Following the dismissal of the Township's application for an injunction and the granting of the respondents' cross-application for a fill permit, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs and disbursements including non-litigation expenses.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, excluded non-litigation expenses, and awarded the respondents $31,193.68 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants challenged a municipal by-law regulating short-term rental accommodations (STRs) in the Township of Tiny, arguing it was ultra vires the municipality's business licensing powers and effectively prohibited STRs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the by-law was a valid exercise of the Township's broad statutory authority to license businesses and regulate matters affecting the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the municipality.

The court held that the by-law's restrictions, including a cap on the number of licenses and the total days an STR could be rented, were rationally connected to legitimate municipal objectives and did not amount to an outright prohibition.

A township sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from depositing fill on their property without a permit under the municipal fill by-law.

The respondents brought a counterapplication seeking a declaration that the by-law was invalid, or alternatively that they had complied with the permit requirements and a fill permit should issue.

The court found the by-law valid but held that the township acted ultra vires by requiring the applicant to verify aviation safety standards that fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction over aeronautics.

The court ordered the township to forthwith issue the fill permit and dismissed the township's injunction application.

The appellant appealed a minor variance application to permit the building of a sleeping cabin.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its previous decision dated August 7, 2024.

The amendments corrected a paragraph referencing the Township's Official Plan and changed a word in one of the conditions.

In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision dated August 7, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the title line of the decision was amended to read 'DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL'.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the construction of a sleeping cabin on a shoreline residential lot on Six Mile Lake.

The requested variances involved increased lot coverage and reduced interior side yard and building separation setbacks.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the sleeping cabin was compatible with existing residential uses, would not have significant visual or privacy impacts, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision issued on June 18, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal replaced Attachment 1 in its entirety.

In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding a third-party appeal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a retirement home.

The applicant argued that the appeal was deemed dismissed under the newly enacted Bill 185 transitionary provisions of the Planning Act, as a merit hearing was not ordered to be scheduled prior to the April 10, 2024 cutoff date.

The Tribunal found that while dates were canvassed at a case management conference on April 4, 2024, a formal order scheduling the hearing was not issued until April 18, 2024.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the appeal was deemed dismissed by operation of law and could not continue.

The appellants appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 11 (OPA 11) by the County of Grey, which prescribed policies for future growth.

The appeals specifically concerned the identification of Future Secondary Plan Areas.

The parties reached a settlement and jointly proposed modifications to OPA 11.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised OPA 11 had regard to matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved OPA 11 as modified.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a retirement home, the applicant challenged the validity of the appeal under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act.

The applicant argued the appellant corporation was incorporated after the council decision and did not make prior submissions.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to bring a formal motion to determine the validity of the appeal and set a schedule for motion materials and a hearing date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Greater Sudbury's decision to amend a zoning by-law to permit a six-storey retirement home.

The City did not attend and indicated it would not participate.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing and approved the Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The Township of Tiny brought a motion under s. 34(31) of the Planning Act to bring into force the unappealed portions of its new comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 22-075.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the unappealed portions into effect and amending the by-law to permit a Mineral Aggregate Resources zone on specific lands in accordance with a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal also scheduled hearing dates for the remaining site-specific and section-specific appeals, including those related to short-term rentals, boathouses, and specific zoning designations.

This was the first Case Management Conference for an appeal brought by the appellant against the respondent's Official Plan Amendment 2, which regulates short-term rental accommodations.

The Tribunal granted party status to the respondent, which will act as the lead for the hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal also noted that this appeal will be heard together with related zoning by-law appeals, and directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a zoning by-law regulating short-term rental accommodations in the Township of Tiny.

The Tribunal directed that related appeals concerning the Official Plan Amendment and the Comprehensive Zoning By-law be heard together.

The parties were ordered to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List for the next case management conference.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seven-storey apartment building, stacked townhouses, and a two-storey office building.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan, Region of Peel Official Plan, and City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle but withholding the final order pending confirmation of a site plan control application consistent with the proposed concept plans.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a residential development, several individuals sought party or participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to an individual representing an unincorporated citizens' group, and participant status to others.

The Tribunal also finalized a Procedural Order and scheduled a six-day video hearing.

The applicants sought an order for costs against the appellant following the dismissal of a minor variance appeal.

The applicants failed to notify the Tribunal of their intent to seek costs within the mandatory 30-day period following the issuance of the decision, as required by Rule 23.1 of the OLT Rules.

The Tribunal rejected the applicants' arguments that the delay should be excused due to the COVID-19 pandemic and business pressures.

The motion for costs was denied for non-compliance with the Tribunal's rules.

The applicant sought $51,562.22 in costs against the appellant following the appellant's unsuccessful appeal of a development permit for a commercial wedding venue.

The applicant argued the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious, alleging he caused unnecessary delays and presented misleading evidence.

The Hearing Officer applied the three-step test for costs and found that the appellant's conduct did not interfere with the Tribunal's ability to secure a just and expeditious determination.

The application for costs was dismissed.

Bryan Chukwunweike Okonta pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine, trafficking methamphetamine, and possessing proceeds of crime over $5,000.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the substantial quantity of drugs and financial gain, and mitigating factors such as his lack of criminal record, employment history, guilty plea, strong family and community support, and good rehabilitation prospects.

The defence sought a sentence of 2 to 2.5 years, while the Crown sought 4 to 5 years.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of three years imprisonment for the trafficking counts and one year for possession of proceeds of crime, along with a 10-year firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of $10,000.

The judge balanced denunciation and deterrence with the offender's personal circumstances and rehabilitation potential.