Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 02, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001056

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

Applicant/Appellant: Pleasant Cove Resort Inc (Bishop)

Subject: Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.: A2000-07

Property Address/Description: 97 North Shore Road - Condominium Unit #8

Municipality: Township of The Archipelago

Municipal File No.: A08-21

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001056

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001056

OLT Case Name: Pleasant Cove Resort Inc (Bishop) v Township of The Archipelago (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 20 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Pleasant Cove Resort Inc (Bishop)

Request for: Request for an Order Awarding Costs

Costs sought against: Township of The Archipelago

Heard: June 9, 2022 via video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Pleasant Cove Resort Inc. (“Applicant”)

Marc Kemerer

Township of Archipelago (“Township”)

Sylvain Rouleau

DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS and Eric s. Crowe and ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

BACKGROUND

1A Notice of Motion seeking costs in this matter was received by the Tribunal on June 9, 2022. The Applicant is seeking costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,000.00. For the reasons that follow, the motion is dismissed.

2The Applicant provided a Motion Record dated June 9, 2022, which included the Notice of Motion, affidavit of Bruce Bishop (principal of the Applicant company) with attachments, and a selection of case law. The Tribunal did not direct the Township to provide any responding materials.

3Costs are rarely awarded by the Tribunal, and the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has clearly fallen short of demonstrating that this case is an exception. Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure outlines the circumstances in which costs may be ordered. 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. A decision to award costs is at the discretion of the Tribunal.

4The Applicant claims that the conduct of the Township planner, and by extension the Township, was unreasonable and “likely vexatious”. However, in support of this contention, the Applicant cited only differences in opinion, failed efforts to negotiate and settle, delays caused by the hearing, and a change of opinion by the Township planner. The Applicant also argued that the Township planner was not credible and lacked objectivity and flexibly with regards to his opinion and efforts to find a resolution.

5Contrary to these submissions, the Tribunal finds that the proceedings were normally contentious and observed no remarkable conduct by any of the parties or the witnesses. Success by a party is not recognized as a ground to award costs by the Tribunal. The motion is therefore dismissed.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS

MEMBER

“Eric S. Crowe”

Eric. s Crowe

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```