Jarvis v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Mun.), 2022 CanLII 23469

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement

du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

March 21, 2022

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-21-001129

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant:

Quinton Jarvis

Applicant:

Joseph and Mary Hoefnagels

Subject:

Consent

Property Address/Description:

8 Ridge Street

Municipality:

Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc

Municipal File No.:

B1-2021

OLT Case No.:

OLT-21-001129

OLT File No.:

OLT-21-001129

OLT Case Name:

Jarvis v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Mun.)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant:

Quinton Jarvis

Applicant:

Joseph and Mary Hoefnagels

Subject:

Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.:

43-08

Property Address/Description:

8 Ridge Street

Municipality:

Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc

Municipal File No.:

A4-2021

OLT Case No.:

OLT-21-001129

OLT File No.:

OLT-21-001130

Heard:

March 11, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc

County of Middlesex

Wayne Meagher*

Quinton Jarvis

(“Appellant”)

Self-represented

DECISION ON WRITTEN MOTION FOR COSTS DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision is with respect to a written Motion for Costs sought by the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc (“Strathroy”) and the County of Middlesex (“Middlesex”), subsequent to a hearing on the merits of an appeal held by Video Hearing Conference (“VH”) before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on December 6, 2021.

2The VH concerned an appeal by Quinton Jarvis of a decision of Strathroy which is located in the County of Middlesex in south-western Ontario. The Strathroy decision on May 6, 2021 was to grant the Applicants’ application made on February 1, 2021 for a lot severance and minor variance at the Strathroy property known municipally as 8 Ridge Street (“Subject Site”) owned by the Applicants. Mr. Jarvis lives next door to the Subject Site at 11 Ridge Street.

3Despite proper notice of the VH having been served on all Parties, the Appellant, Mr. Jarvis did not appear at the VH nor make any written submissions regarding his appeal. Anecdotally, the Applicant Mr. Hoefnagels testified at the VH that he had spoken by telephone to the Appellant who told him a few days before the VH that he no longer opposed the applications for the Severance and the Variance.

4In light of the Appellant’s failure to appear, this alone would have been grounds for the Tribunal to dismiss his appeal. However, counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex submitted that he was able to tender evidence to support the decision reached by Strathroy and the Tribunal agreed to receive it.

5The other relevant facts and circumstances related to this matter are set out in the Decision issued on December 14, 2021 (“Prior Decision”) and need not be repeated here.

MATERIALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

6Counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex first submitted a Notice of Motion seeking costs related to the underlying proceeding and VH, together with ‘Costs Submissions’ and a ‘Bill of Costs’, dated January 11, 2022. Then, counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex delivered a ‘Final Notice of Written Motion for Costs’ and ‘Costs Submissions’, together with a ‘Bill of Costs’ dated January 26, 2002, comprising 40 pages in total, together with proof of service of same on Mr. Jarvis.

7Mr. Jarvis filed his ‘Response’ dated January 28, 2022, comprising 17 pages.

APPLICABLE LAW

8As pointed out by Member Wilkins in his Decision dated January 14, 2022 in OLT-21-001122 in Evergreen Environmental Inc. v. City of Oshawa, 2022 CanLII 1598 (ON LT) the Tribunal’s authority to award costs is found in s. 20 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, s.o. 2021. C. 4, Schedule 6 (“Act”) which states that the Tribunal may, subject to any other Act, fix the costs of and incidental to any proceeding, and order a party to the proceeding to pay the costs. Section 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, (“SPPA”) further provides authority to the Tribunal to make rules regarding the ordering of costs and to order that a party reimburse another party to pay its costs.

9Additional guidance with respect to the Tribunal’s past jurisprudence regarding the type of conduct that is relevant to the exercise of discretion to award costs in was summarized in a decision of the former Ontario Municipal Board in the case of Re Kimvar Enterprises Inc., [2009] O.M.B.D., 61 O.M.B.R. 293, at paragraph [14] as follows:

“…The test for clearly unreasonable conduct that is most often cited in Board decisions is: would a reasonable person, having looked at all of the circumstances of the case, conclude the conduct was not right, the conduct was not fair and that person ought to be obligated to another in some way for that kind of conduct (Midland (Town) Zoning By-law 94-50, Re (1995), 32 O.M.B.R. 4 (O.M.B.); Customized Transportation Ltd. v. Brampton (City), [2002] O.M.B.D. No. 832 (O.M.B.); Barrie Paintball Adventure Club Inc. v. Essa (Township), 2006 CarswellOnt 5296 (O.M.B.)…” [emphasis added]

10The rules regarding costs matters are set out in detail within the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), specifically in Rule 23, the applicable provisions of which are:

23.1  Who May Request an Order for Costs Only a party may ask for an award of costs at the end of a hearing event. If the request for costs is not made before the Tribunal renders its decision at the end of the hearing event, the party must notify the Tribunal and the party from whom costs are sought within 30 days after the written 23.2  Costs Requests will be considered by Written Motion All cost requests shall be considered and disposed of by the Tribunal in writing unless a party satisfies the Tribunal that consideration of the request in writing is likely to cause the party significant prejudice...

23.4  Disposition of Request Where Request Made After Issuance of Decision Subject to the party satisfying the requirements in Rule 23.1 for submission of a request, and Rule 23.2 for an in person or electronic motion, the Tribunal may direct the party or parties requesting costs to:

(b) within 35 days of the Tribunal’s direction, serve upon each party against whom costs are sought, and file with the Tribunal documentation which shall include, subject to any other documentation ordered by the Tribunal:

i. the reasons for the request and the amount requested;

ii. an estimate of any extra preparation or hearing time caused by the conduct alleged to attract costs;

iii. copies of supporting invoices for expenses claimed or an affidavit of a person responsible for payment of those expenses verifying that the expenses were properly incurred; and

iv. an affidavit verifying that the costs claimed were incurred directly and necessarily for the time period in question; or

i. (c) within 35 days of the Tribunal’s direction, serve and file a notice of motion for costs in accordance with Rule 10. A motion for costs shall only proceed as an in person or electronic hearing, if a party satisfies the requirements in Rule 23.2, and the notice of motion must contain the following information: [emphasis added]

ii. the reasons for the request and the amount requested;

iii. an estimate of any extra preparation or hearing time caused by the conduct alleged to attract costs;

iv. copies of supporting invoices for expenses claimed or an affidavit of a person responsible for payment of those expenses verifying that the expenses were properly incurred; and an affidavit verifying that the costs claimed were incurred directly and necessarily for the time period in question.

23.5  Response by Other Party Where the Tribunal directs a proceeding in writing in accordance with Rule 23.2, the party or parties against whom the request for costs is made shall, within 15 days of service of the documentation from the party requesting costs, provide a written response to the Tribunal and the other parties to whom the request for costs is made.

23.6  Reply by Party Seeking Costs Where the Tribunal directs a proceeding in writing in accordance with Rule 23.2, the party requesting costs may provide to the Tribunal and other parties to whom the request for costs relates a reply to a written response, within 10 days of the service of the response.

23.7  Member Seized to Consider Costs Order The Tribunal Member who conducted the hearing event on the merits shall make the decision on the request for costs. If that Member is, for any reason, unable to hear or deal with the request, the Chair will direct another Member of the Tribunal to hear the motion. [emphasis added]

23.8  Period Eligible for Costs Order The Tribunal may make a costs award for conduct at any time during a proceeding. [emphasis added]

23.9  Circumstances in Which Costs Order May be Made The Tribunal may only order costs against a party if the conduct or course of conduct of a party has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or if the party has acted in bad faith. Clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious or bad faith conduct can include, but is not limited to: [emphasis added]

a. failing to attend a hearing event or failing to send a representative when properly given notice, without contacting the Tribunal; [emphasis added]

b. failing to give notice without adequate explanation, lack of co-operation with other parties during the proceedings, changing a position without notice to the parties, or introducing an issue or evidence not previously mentioned or included in a procedural order; [emphasis added]

c. failing to act in a timely manner or failing to comply with a procedural order or direction of the Tribunal where the result is undue prejudice or delay; [emphasis added]

d. a course of conduct necessitating unnecessary adjournments or delays or failing to prepare adequately for hearing events; [emphasis added]

e. failing to present evidence, continuing to deal with issues, asking questions or taking steps that the Tribunal has determined to be improper; [emphasis added]

f. failing to make reasonable efforts to combine submissions with parties of similar interest;

g. acting disrespectfully or maligning the character of another party; [emphasis added]

h. knowingly presenting false or misleading evidence; or

i. breaching a confidentiality requirement of a mediation, settlement conference or of a decision of the Tribunal in the hearing of the merits.

The Tribunal is not bound to order costs when any of these examples occur as the Tribunal will consider the seriousness of the misconduct. [emphasis added]

23.10  Powers of Tribunal The Tribunal may deny or grant the application for costs or award a different amount and fix the costs of and incidental to the proceeding and direct payment be made by a certain date by order.

23.11  Interest on Award Awards of costs may bear interest in the same manner as those made under section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES

11This Motion for Costs features several unusual circumstances:

(a) the Appellant/Respondent is a self-represented resident of Strathroy, and Strathroy/Middlesex is seeking on this Motion that a costs award be made against the Appellant personally;

(b) the Appellant/Respondent made no apparent effort to file any evidence or make any written or oral submissions on the merits of his own Appeal;

(c) the Appellant/Respondent failed to appear at the hearing of his Appeal held by video hearing on December 6, 2021 (“Merits Hearing”) and took no steps to definitively advise the Tribunal or counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex that he did not intend to appear, although there was some evidence at the Merits Hearing to the effect that he in fact had decided to abandon his Appeal;

(d) earlier in two separate emails to the Tribunal and to counsel for Strathroy / Middlesex on October 28, 2021, the Appellant objected to an electronic Hearing taking place on December 6, 2021, asserting that: “Technology and Internet connection doesn't always function properly (sic) and can be unreliable” and: “I would like to maintain my privacy while dealing with this matter, to a reasonable degree…” and: “Therefore I would like this hearing to be held in person when it is safe to do so and available” and: “As the party that has appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to accept this variance and severance, providing the required fees to appeal both cases, I still object to this hearing event being held as an electronic hearing. I would like this to be held in-person confident with the security of an online hearing and the matters discussed”;

(e) The Tribunal denied the Appellant’s request outlined in paragraph [11] (d) above;

(f) Then, the Appellant sent an email to the Tribunal and counsel for Strathroy/Middlesex on November 19, 2021 again requesting an adjournment and stating “I will not be able to attend the electronic hearing scheduled for December 6th, 2021…”, offering no further reasons or justification for this late-breaking request. This second adjournment request was also denied by the Tribunal; and

(g) The only submissions which the Appellant/Respondent did make in respect of his Merits Appeal were seventeen (angry) pages responding to this written costs motion by Strathroy/Middlesex.

12The Tribunal suspects that if the Appellant had devoted a modest portion of the energy required for his efforts described above in paragraph [11] to marshal some evidence and arguments to support the appeal that he initiated – or to simply advise the Tribunal and counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex that he wished to withdraw his appeal – it is possible that this Motion for Costs might never have been filed.

13The Tribunal also notes that the Appellant sought and received assistance from the OLT case coordinator with carriage of this proceeding with respect to his Merits Appeal, and that in his written costs submission the Appellant commented positively about the help that he received.

14The Tribunal is also struck by the reality that it is apparently rare for costs to be sought against an unrepresented Appellant who fails to appear for a hearing. In fact, counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex did not cite to the Tribunal any past cases where the Tribunal or any of its predecessors considered or awarded costs in such circumstances.

ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSIS

15Counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex made the following arguments in his written submissions:

(a) Costs ought to be set at fees fixed on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount of $9,870.00 and $80.00 in disbursements In the alternative to, fees fixed on a partial indemnity scale in the amount $6,785.63 and $80.00 in disbursements, or in the further alternative, a reasonable amount as determined by the OLT, all with reference to a detailed Bill of Costs made Schedule A to the written Motion for Costs;

(b) Costs ought to be awarded because:

(i) The Appellant failed to attend the scheduled Hearing without contacting the Respondent or Tribunal despite being given appropriate notice;

(ii) By virtue of the Appellant failing to appear at the scheduled Hearing, the Appellant failed to present evidence. It is the Respondent’s position that the omission of said evidence attracts the finding of unreasonable and bad faith conduct. Legge v. Dysart (Township),2021 LNONLPAT 136 held that: “failing to present planning evidence may not be unreasonable but failing present little or no evidence to support positions and grounds advanced in an Appeal may, on the facts, be considered unreasonable.”;

(iii) The Appellant requested an adjournment to delay the Hearing despite being given appropriate notice. In response to this, the Respondent was required to devote significant time and resources to review and appropriately respond to the informal motion adjournment request. It is the Respondent’s position that this unsuccessful informal motion was unnecessary and without merit;

(iv) The Appellant unnecessarily objected to the VH without providing any evidence of prejudice, and as such, the Respondent was required to devote significant time and resources to review and appropriately respond to the raised objection, which was ultimately not successful. It is the Respondent’s respectful position that the above-noted factors reasonably qualify as exceptional evidence demonstrating the Appellant’s unreasonable and frivolous conduct nature concerning this matter;

(v) Counsel for the Respondent devoted a significant amount of time and resources reviewing and responding to the Appellant’s initial two informal motions in writing, and then had to subsequently prepare for and attend the virtual hearing to defend the Merits Appeal; and

(vi) In the case at bar, it would not be appropriate to deny costs to the Respondent since to do so would be to require the taxpayers to pay the cost for responding to the Appellant’s initial two (2) motion requests, and subsequently defending the validity of the Municipality’s initial reasonable and transparent planning decisions. At para 50 in Legge v. Dysart, the Tribunal held that,

“The objective test to be applied by the Tribunal does however recognize that despite the exceptional nature of cost awards, parties must also be accountable for their conduct that breaches the acceptable standards set out in the Rule. There is a point at which a person has crossed a line where the right to protect their interest or advance planning interests is being unreasonably advanced, without evidence or genuine land use planning grounds, to the extent that objectively it is not "right", and is not fair, to the detriment of the opposing party who must expend time and monies to respond.”

16For his part, Mr. Jarvis responded by delivering a lengthy, rambling and emotional submission in response to this costs motion. In no particular order, Mr. Jarvis contended that:

(a) He was “extremely disappointed by” this Motion for Costs and “the actions of” counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex;

(b) He “felt betrayed by my own city, county and local government. This entire application process has caused us unduly (sic) stress, loss of sleep, loss of personal time, and financial loss to myself and my family”;

(c) He was very busy with work and personal matters in December, 2021 and felt that he could not take time off work to be present at the Merits Hearing (which he had never mentioned during his two previous adjournment requests);

(d) Purporting to cite the job description for counsel for Strathroy and Middlesex that he had been able to uncover through online research, he argued that counsel failed to “Treat [him] with dignity and respect” presumably because of the filing of this costs motion;

(e) He “hope[d] the persons who hired Wayne P. Meagher and the MSBSO team wasn’t [sic] aware of the character and misconduct that he would portray while working in his position”, while providing no evidence whatsoever to justify such an unwarranted personal attack;

(f) “I would understand if I was a big company or if I hired a professional company to attend and participate in the hearing and they didn’t attend without any notice or indication that they were not going to be able to attend. I believe that would be reasonable grounds to request these costs from that Company. That is not the case. A City is going after a young family that resides in their city and pays their taxes”;

(g) I am currently 23 years old and my wife is 24 years old. I graduated from College in 2019 and my Wife in 2018. I am an Engineering Technologist and my Wife is a Nurse... Similar to most young families, we have a Mortgage, Student Loans, Car Loans and now a Child to look after and raise”;

(h) Criticizing Strathroy / Middlesex for being: “concerned that their legal fees would have to be covered with taxpayers’ money. If they were truly concerned, why would they continue to waste taxpayers’ money having two lawyers spend a total of 7 hours on this Motion for costs prepartion? An additional total of $1050.00 spent on a pointless Motion for Costs against the same people who help fund their operations”;

(i) Alleging that he “…did inform the Tribunal on November 19th, 2021 that I would not be able to attend the hearing. Notice was provided and clear…proper notice that I wouldn’t be able to attend..,” (Mr. Jarvis’ apparent argument here is that despite the denied adjournment that somehow the Merits Hearing ought to have been rescheduled to some point in the “Winter of 2022” to better suit his convenience;

(j) Contending, without evidence: ”… [counsel for Strathroy / Middlesex] has failed to complete careful analysis. He has failed to treat myself as an individual with dignity and respect. He has bended the truth [sic] in his favor and has avoided very important facts related to this matter…”

(k) “…After reading the Appellants background information, can Wayne Meagher now recognize the uniqueness of the individuals that he has come into contact with as his job description states? Would Wayne Meagher target other vulnerable young families in the Middlesex County to attempt to take advantage of them financially?...”;

(l) Apparently alleging some form of discrimination, contending: “… I strongly feel that during the [prior Committee of Adjustment hearing], that there was prejudice involved. I can’t help but feel this way based on how I was treated during the meeting. It is sad but I can understand it may be hard to respect and listen to someone that [sic] looks like me …” [emphasis added]

(m) As an apparent explanation for his failure to appear at the Merits Hearing: “…If an explanation for why a young working citizen couldn’t attend a meeting on a Monday morning at 10:00am. I would have gladly stated the obvious. I am sure there are sometimes older retired persons who are in my position who have no reason or excuse as to why they can’t possibly attend a meeting at that time. That is not the case…”; and

(n) In an effort to counter the arguments of Strathroy / Middlesex that it had been put to costs that must be borne by their ratepayers: “…“to do so would be to require the taxpayers to pay the cost”. Is this not what I pay taxes for? To help pay the cost of all the Operations for the City and County? You are asking a taxpayer to cover other taxpayers for operations that you are already covered for. You propose budgets for these types of meetings, hearings. They are reviewed, revised if necessary, and then accepted. Please see below additional section providing some data and notes that I have researched regarding Taxpayers money in Strathroy and Middlesex County…”

17The Tribunal realizes that it can often be a difficult and demanding process for a self-represented party to prosecute an appeal of a municipal planning decision before the OLT. Moreover, the Tribunal notes the young age and inexperience of Mr. Jarvis and also his personal circumstances which he has alleged in great detail in his submissions in support of his opposition to this costs motion. On the other hand, the Tribunal finds his course of conduct in this proceeding, including but not limited to his personal attacks on counsel for Middlesex/Strathroy, and allegations about the improper motivations of the municipality itself, to be completely without any apparent foundation. Those allegations are also wholly unfair, unnecessary and unwarranted – a circumstance which is specifically set out in Rule 23.9(g) as a relevant factor to be considered on this motion.

18The Tribunal notes that if a legal counsel had made unsubstantiated allegations of the nature described in paragraphs [16] and [17] this could lead the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to make a costs award, and might even additionally result in professional discipline - a matter obviously well beyond the purview of the OLT.

19While it seems evident that Mr. Jarvis was serious about the pursuance of his appeal, the responsibility of every Appellant in an OLT proceeding is to make reasonable efforts to become familiarized with the practice and procedure of the Tribunal and to demonstrate respect for its authority and role – and for the Parties in opposition and their representatives. An Appellant does not demonstrate respect for either the opposing Party or the Tribunal itself by assuming that it is acceptable for to suddenly decide two weeks prior to a long-scheduled merits hearing that he will not appear, on the basis that it is no longer convenient to do so due to employment or personal circumstances. This is especially so, where an adjournment of the hearing date has been sought and refused on two occasions.

20As set out in Rule 17.4: “The Tribunal will grant last minute adjournments only for unavoidable emergencies, such as illnesses so close to the hearing date that another witness cannot be obtained. The Tribunal must be informed of these emergencies as soon as possible”. It is notable here that neither Mr. Jarvis’s first nor second adjournment request described any such “unavoidable emergencies”. Nor does he allege this in his lengthy submission filed for this costs motion.

21The Tribunal was struck by the surprising attitude of entitlement demonstrated by Mr. Jarvis in his written submission: it appears that he believes that it was reasonable for him to simply advise the other Party and the OLT that he was not going to attend the Merits Hearing despite having been twice not granted an adjournment and that it was somehow incumbent on the OLT and Strathroy/Middlesex to accept this and, presumably, reschedule the hearing for some future date that might work better for him.

22The Tribunal also notes that in his written submissions, Mr. Jarvis made no attempt to dispel the representation made by Mr. Hofnagels at the December 6, 2021 hearing that Mr. Jarvis advised him by telephone that he no longer wished to pursue his appeal. Given that he took the time to compile 17 pages setting out a number of other allegations, attacks and explanations, it seems revealing that he chose not to address this key point which was clearly noted in the Prior Decision.

23The Tribunal therefore finds it to be likely that Mr. Jarvis did advise Mr. Hofnagels by telephone prior to the Merits Hearing that he did not intend to proceed further with his appeal. In the Tribunal’s view, this is also consistent with the nature and tenor of his written submissions. The Tribunal also draws the inference from his numerous repetitive allegations that Mr. Jarvis deliberately chose not to advise the Tribunal or counsel for Strathroy/Middlesex that he no longer intended to carry on with his appeal.

24The Tribunal is of the view that Mr. Jarvis should have taken timely steps prior to the Merits Hearing to withdraw his appeal to the Tribunal and to so advise counsel for Strathroy/Middlesex. This would have saved significant costs and time for both the OLT and for Strathroy/Middlesex – as noted, it may even have convinced the latter not to instruct the filing of this Motion for Costs. Certainly, the Tribunal would have taken the prior filing of a withdrawal of the appeal to have been relevant to the exercise of its discretion to consider a request for a costs award under Rule 23.

CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS

24The Tribunal will exercise its discretion under Rule 23.9 (a), (c), (e) and (g) to award costs payable by Mr. Jarvis in favour of Strathroy/Middlesex on the basis that:

(a) Mr. Jarvis has engaged in a course of conduct that has been unreasonable and frivolous and was in bad faith, and “was not right, …[and]…was not fair and …[he]… ought to be obligated to another in some way for that kind of conduct” (see caselaw cited in paragraph [9] above), the specifics of which have been described in paragraphs [13] to [23], inclusive, above;

(b) Mr. Jarvis failed to attend the hearing of his appeal on December 6, 2021 despite having twice been denied an adjournment of that hearing when he knew or ought to have known that the hearing would proceed on that date;

(c) Mr. Jarvis failed to provide any evidence or submissions regarding the basis for his appeal;

(d) Mr. Jarvis filed written submissions on this motion that were unreasonable, deceptive and which included irrelevant, unnecessary, unsubstantiated and inflammatory allegations that were disrespectful to Strathroy / Middlesex and its counsel and which maligned the character of counsel for Strathroy / Middlesex; and

(e) Mr. Jarvis failed to advise either the Tribunal or Strathroy / Middlesex that he had in fact decided not to proceed with his appeal.

25Taking into account Mr. Jarvis’s self-described youth and personal family circumstances, as well as his obvious inexperience before the OLT, the Tribunal declines to make an award of costs in either amount sought by counsel for Strathroy / Middlesex as set out in paragraph [15] above.

26In all of the circumstances of this proceeding, the Tribunal determines that it would be reasonable to award costs in the amount of $1,200.

ORDER

27The Appellant Quinton Jarvis shall pay costs in the amount of $1,200. payable either to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc or the County of Middlesex within 90 days of the date of this Decision.

28This costs award shall bear interest calculated pursuant to section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.

“William R. Middleton”

WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.