Nicholas A. G. Lovell

The Grey Sauble Conservation Authority (GSCA) sought a declaration that it is the proper owner of a parcel of land (PIN 37092-0350(R)) within the Hibou Conservation Area.

The respondent, Leroy David Dirckx, claimed title based on a chain of title beginning in 2013.

The court reviewed the historical chain of title, the registry and land titles systems, and allegations of a fraudulent scheme to create a false chain of title.

The court found that GSCA had established ownership by chain of title and, alternatively, by adverse possession.

The court granted a vesting order in favour of GSCA and extinguished any claim of Dirckx or others to the property.

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula passed a zoning by-law amendment to add a definition of a 'Commercial Tour Boat Operation' and include it as a permitted use in all C1 zones.

The Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee appealed, arguing the use was incompatible with the existing residential community along Big Tub Road.

Bruce Anchor also appealed regarding parking provisions, which were settled prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Citizens Committee's appeal, finding that the amendment conforms to the Official Plan, represents good land use planning, and is in the public interest, as commercial tour boat operations have historically operated from the subject properties and provide important tourism and employment opportunities.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following prehearing conferences regarding appeals of Zoning By-law Amendment 2002-54 by the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula.

The appeals concern the definition and zoning of commercial tour boat operations.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence for a 10-day video hearing scheduled to begin in January 2025.

The moving parties requested directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its previous decision dated July 30, 2024, pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The amendments corrected the title of proceedings, updated the appearances list to include co-counsel, and removed a paragraph reminding the parties of a status update deadline.

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula and Bruce Anchor Cruises brought motions to dismiss an appeal by The Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee against a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted commercial tour boat operations in a commercial zone.

The moving parties argued the notice of appeal failed to adequately explain how the by-law was inconsistent with provincial policies or official plans under s. 34(19.0.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding the notice of appeal and accompanying materials raised authentic land use planning issues worthy of adjudication, including traffic, parking, and land use compatibility.

A motion to alter the issues list was also denied.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula, the Tribunal granted participant status to nine individuals on consent.

The parties indicated ongoing without-prejudice discussions to resolve or define issues.

The Tribunal ordered a status update by December 22, 2023, and scheduled a ten-day video hearing to commence on January 27, 2025.

The Plaintiff, Saugeen Economic Development Corporation, sought to enforce a second mortgage against the property of the Defendants, Karl and Karen Peuser.

The Defendants brought a cross-motion for summary judgment to discharge the mortgage, arguing the Plaintiff had surrendered its security interest during their respective bankruptcy proceedings by filing an amended proof of claim as an unsecured creditor.

The court found no express or implied surrender of the security interest, noting that the Plaintiff's actions were consistent with the security having no value at the time of bankruptcy and did not prejudice other creditors.

Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the Defendants' cross-motion was dismissed.

The Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee (BTHCC) and Lyons Big Tub Resort Marina Ltd. appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula.

Lyons brought a motion to strike several issues from BTHCC's appeal, arguing the notice of appeal failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with applicable policy documents as required by s. 34(19.0.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal agreed, finding BTHCC's appeal lacked the mandatory statutory explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed BTHCC's appeal entirely and allowed Lyons' appeal to proceed solely on the issue of parking provisions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the reconstruction and expansion of an existing boathouse.

The parties reached a settlement reducing the proposed height of the boathouse.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance subject to conditions, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent of the official plan and zoning by-law, was desirable, and was minor in nature.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of a Niagara Escarpment Commission decision granting conditional approval for a development permit to relocate a portion of North Shore Road.

The Commission advised it would not participate as it believed the appeals related to a portion of the road outside its jurisdiction.

Several participant requests were granted.

Due to the number of parties and lack of clarity on whether their concerns fell within the Commission's jurisdiction, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties to meet, determine if they wish to pursue the appeal, and frame their issues appropriately.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision dismissing his application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the tenancy was exempt from the Residential Tenancies Act under s. 5(i) because the tenant was required to share a kitchen and bathroom with the landlord's daughter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's interpretation of the exemption or its factual findings regarding the daughter's residency and use of the shared facilities.

The Escarpment Biosphere Conservancy appealed the Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted the development of a cottage, detached garage, and septic system on lands within the Zinkan Island Cove Area of Natural and Scientific Interest.

The appellant argued that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the development would have no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions, as required by the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, preferring the evidence of the applicant's and municipality's experts, who concluded that the development, restricted to a previously disturbed building envelope with mitigation measures, would have no negative impacts on the alvar habitat or other natural heritage features.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondent submitted their costs, while the appellant chose not to make any submissions.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,500, inclusive of disbursements and all relevant taxes.

The appellant, acting as estate trustee, appealed a judgment denying her application to set aside a municipal tax sale of a property previously owned by her deceased parents.

She argued the municipality failed to provide her with proper notice of the sale and acted in bad faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the municipality strictly complied with the notice requirements under the Municipal Act, 2001 by sending registered letters to the assessed owners at their last known addresses.

The court held that the municipality owed no additional duty of good faith to notify the appellant, who had not registered her interest on title or updated the municipal tax rolls.

The applicant Municipality sought a declaration of ownership over a strip of beach on Georgian Bay where the respondent had built a deck.

The respondent argued the beach was owned by the Provincial Crown.

The court analyzed the historical conveyances, including the original 1899 Crown Patent and a 1969 Reference Plan, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Walker.

The court found no express reservation of the beach in the Crown Patent or subsequent conveyances, concluding that the waterfront lots extended to the water's edge.

Consequently, the Municipality, having acquired the adjacent road, also owned the beach.

The respondent was found to be trespassing and ordered to remove the deck.

The Municipality of the Northern Bruce Peninsula appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that had quashed convictions for breaches of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The appeal judge had applied an outdated limitation period under section 36(8) of the BCA, relying on R. v. Pickles, which held that the one-year limitation period ran from the date construction was completed.

However, section 36(8) had been amended on July 1, 2010, to provide that the limitation period commenced from the date the facts first came to the knowledge of an officer or chief building official.

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution was instituted within one year of the Municipality's initial knowledge of the structure and that the appeal judge had erred in law by applying the wrong limitation period.

The convictions and sentences were reinstated.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful application by the respondents.

The respondents, Bart Toby and the Town of Saugeen Shores, sought substantial indemnity costs, or partial indemnity, while Weichold Limited sought partial indemnity.

The applicant argued for no costs or partial indemnity.

The court determined the matter was not complex or novel and awarded partial indemnity costs to all respondents, noting that an offer to settle by Toby and Saugeen Shores, though served too late for full substantial indemnity, would have avoided the hearing.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages related to basement flooding.

He argued the trial judge erred by requiring an expert report to be served prior to trial, adjourning the trial for that purpose, and ultimately rejecting his expert witness.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge properly exercised his gatekeeper function over expert evidence.

However, the appeal was allowed in part regarding costs; the court applied the Strasser principle to find that the Small Claims Court rule permitting the doubling of costs does not apply when a plaintiff's action is entirely dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 for personal property left in her possession after their common-law relationship ended.

The Divisional Court found the Deputy Judge erred by misapprehending an acknowledgment of ownership as an acknowledgment of value, and by failing to consider the appellant's challenge to the respondent's valuation.

The Court also admitted fresh evidence, including an appraisal report and medical records, finding the appellant's self-represented status and medical impediments excused her inability to present the evidence at trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.