Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 21, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002392
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: James Hunter and Heather Hunter
Applicant: Timothy and Janette Thorne
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit limited retail and commercial uses including a outfitters store and an inn
Reference Number: OPA C-2021-017
Property Address: 484 Carlisle Street
Municipality/UT: Saugeen Shores/Bruce
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002392
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002392
OLT Case Name: Hunter v. Bruce (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(45) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, and section 19(1) and section 20 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.
Motion By: County of Bruce
Purpose of Motion: Request for an Order Dismissing the Appeal
Heard: June 1, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel*
James Hunter/Heather Hunter (“Appellants”) Self-represented
Timothy Thorne/Janette Thorne (“Applicants”) Self-represented
County of Bruce (“County/Respondent”) T. Grove* M. Poremba*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON JUNE 1, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicants had sought a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) from the Town of Saugeen Shores (“Town”) and County of Bruce (“County/Respondent”) with respect to the property known municipally as 484 Carlisle Street (“Subject Lands”) seeking to permit limited retail and commercial uses including an outfitters store and an inn.
2Both applications were approved, but an adjacent property owner, the Appellants, of 464 Carlisle Street, appealed the OPA approval to the Tribunal.
3This matter has been scheduled by the Tribunal for a two-day hearing commencing on June 1 and 2, 2023 which is governed by a Procedural Order (“PO”).
4The County filed a Notice of Motion dated May 24, 2023 to dismiss the Appeal without a hearing, to substitute an expert witness, and for an award of costs.
5The motion was supported by an Affidavit of Monica Poremba sworn on May 24, 2023, which motion was objected to by the Appellants (although they did not file a response to the motion nor an affidavit in reply). The Applicants supported the motion but similarly did not file any affidavit. The motion was heard and the Tribunal allowed the dismissal without a hearing, did not decide on the witness substitution, and made an award of costs in favour of the County.
Motion
6A preliminary matter of short service was raised by the Appellants, since the motion was filed and served (on May 24, 2023), seven days before the motion hearing on June 1, 2023. Counsel for the Respondent County explained that the motion requested an order of abridgement of time for service. The motion was required to be filed, as the County needed to substitute Barbara Mugabe with Jakob Van Dorp, her land use manager and supervisor at the County. Ms. Mugabe, the County’s employee and land use planner, would no longer be available to participate in the hearing due to recent personnel matters at the County. She would not be able to attend the hearing, which situation (the “Mugabe situation”) was immediately made known to the Appellants, and Counsel for the County requested consent from the Appellants for substitution. This request was flatly rejected, which then prompted the County to file the motion for substitution as well as the other requested orders.
7The Tribunal finds that the Mugabe situation provides reasonable grounds for the abridgment of time. There is no change of the County’s evidence which the Appellants already have in their possession. The Appellants could have filed a response to the Motion within the seven days before the motion hearing and be similarly excused for short service. The abridgement is for a few days and given the proximity to the start of the appeal hearing, is reasonable. Thus, the Tribunal abridged time accordingly under rule 3.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) and s. 9 (1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.
Motion to Dismiss, Substitute Witness, and Costs
8The Respondent’s Motion Record was marked as Exhibit 1, and the Respondent’s Factum was marked as Exhibit 2.
9The relief sought was an Order of the Tribunal dismissing the Appellant’s Appeal, without a hearing, pursuant to subsections 17(45) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P.13 (“Planning Act”) and s.19 (1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act (“OLTA”).
10In the alternative – an Order of the Tribunal allowing substitution of Barbara Mugabe with Jakob Van Dorp as the County’s land use planner at the hearing on June 1, 2023.
11The County requested an order for costs, having filed a Bill of Costs.
12The Appellants did not file any affidavit to reply to the motion, indicate in writing any opposition to the dismissal, or present any planning evidence to substantiate opposition by way of affidavit evidence or otherwise. However, they did make oral submissions at the motion hearing.
Tribunal’s Authority to Dismiss
13Section 17(45) of the Planning Act permits the Tribunal, on its own initiative or by a motion of any party, to dismiss all or part of an appeal without a hearing if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the appeal does not disclose any apparent land use planning ground, or is made only for the purpose of delay, or is frivolous or vexatious.
14Pursuant to section 17(45), the Tribunal may, dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if any of the following applies:
The Tribunal is of the opinion that:
i. the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the plan or part of the plan that is the subject of the appeal could be approved or refused by the Tribunal;
ii. the appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious;
iii. the appeal is made only for the purpose of delay, or;
iv. the appellant has persistently and without reasonable grounds commenced before the Tribunal proceedings that constitute an abuse of process.
15The Ontario Land Tribunal Act allows the Tribunal to dismiss a proceeding without a hearing:
19 (1) Subject to subsection (4), the Tribunal may, on the motion of any party or on its own initiative, dismiss a proceeding without a hearing,
(a) if the party who brought the proceeding has not paid any fee required to be paid under this Act;
(b) if the party who brought the proceeding has not responded to a request by the Tribunal for further information within the time specified by the Tribunal;
(c) if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success;
(d) in any circumstance listed in subsection 4.6 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act; or
(e) in any circumstance provided for under any other Act.
– c. 4, Sched. 6, s. 19 (1)
No Apparent Land Use Reason
16In Toronto (City) v. East Beach Community Association, 1996 CarswellOnt 5740, [1996] O.M.B.D. No. 1890, 42 O.M.B.R. 505, (“East Beach”), the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) stated that it is not good enough for an Appellant to simply raise apprehensions in an appeal. The Tribunal is entitled to go behind the stated reasons for the appeal to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons. The Appellant must present serious planning issues and may present evidence to substantiate those issues in the face of a Motion to Dismiss.
17The primary basis of the County’s motion is the lack of expert evidence or planning evidence provided by the Appellants and that the Notice of Appeal filed by the Appellants fails to disclose any apparent land use planning reasons on which to base the appeal.
County’s Submissions
18Ms. Grove, counsel for the County provided background information and submitted that on May 26, 2021, the Applicants, the registered owners of the Subject Lands, submitted an OPA Application to re-establish an inn on the Subject Lands, as well as to convert a personal storage building to an outfitter’s store for rental and/or retailing of kayaks, canoes, and other goods typically found in an outfitters store.
19The OPA Application was approved by the County on January 13, 2022. The Appellants appealed the decision of the County in February 2022 to the Tribunal.
20The first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held on September 22, 2022. It was attended by counsel for the County and the Town (which was granted party status, and has withdrawn before the hearing), by the Applicants, and by the Appellants and their legal counsel, Alexandra Ferrier.
21Prior to the first CMC, the Parties had submitted individual issues lists. During the CMC, the Tribunal went through the issues lists and struck several of the Appellants’ issues as they had not been raised in the Notice of Appeal. The Tribunal also noted that any issues surrounding the ownership of Carlisle Street were outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed both the Appellants and the County and Town to re-draft and clarify the remaining issues for the next CMC.
22Prior to the second CMC, counsel for the Appellants provided the Parties with the Appellants’ issues list and informed the County’s counsel that she was no longer representing the Appellants and that the Appellants would move forward with the Appeal as a self-represented party. The Appellants were copied on that email correspondence.
23On November 28, 2022, the second CMC was held. The Tribunal was required to stand the matter down at the commencement of the CMC, as the Appellants failed to appear at the scheduled time. The Tribunal asked legal counsel for the County to contact the Appellants to let them know the CMC had started. This CMC was adjourned because Bill 23 (the More Homes Built Faster Act) may impact third party appeals, and there was a possibility that the Appeal would be dismissed. The parties were directed to finalize the Procedural Order prior to the next CMC.
24Bill 23 was passed on November 28, 2022, and third party appeals such as the Appellants’ were not eliminated. Though efforts were made by the County to convert the third CMC to a hearing, the Appellants would not consent, and the Tribunal confirmed that the third CMC would go ahead as planned.
25On February 28, 2023, despite the direction to finalize the Procedural Order (PO) prior to the next CMC, the Appellants continued to refuse to consent to the PO. On March 6, 2023, the Appellants served a new issues list for discussion at the CMC.
26On March 10, 2023, a third CMC was held. Again, the Tribunal had to stand the matter down at the commencement of the CMC because the Appellants had once again failed to appear at the scheduled time, and legal counsel for the County was required to contact them to let them know the CMC had started.
27Once the Appellants had joined the third CMC, the Tribunal informed the Appellants that no changes would be made to the Issues List submitted by their legal representative in November 2022. The Appellants informed the Tribunal that they would be calling an expert witness in land use planning, Kevin Curtis, for the hearing. The Parties were directed to finalize the PO based on the hearing dates the Tribunal had reserved and to file it the following week.
28The County finalized the PO and circulated it to the Appellants for consent, which was refused. Despite having received no consent from the Appellants, the PO was filed and the Tribunal issued a Decision, with the PO attached as Attachment 1, on March 20, 2023.
29The PO set out the deadlines by which the Parties needed to submit hearing materials in advance of the hearing. On April 6, 2023, the County filed its witness list (“Witness List”), indicating that it would be calling Barbara Mugabe from the County as its expert witness.
30The Appellants did not submit a Witness List.
31The County continued to meet the deadlines in the PO and filed Barbara Mugabe’s Witness Statement on April 17, 2023, a visual evidence book (“Evidence Book”) on April 27, 2023, and a joint document book (“Joint Document Book”) on May 19, 2023.
32In addition, on April 27, 2023, the County informed the Tribunal that one day would likely suffice for the hearing given that the Appellants did not intend to call any witnesses. Also on April 27, 2023, the Appellants noted to the Tribunal that one day would be sufficient, so long as they were not asked to speak at the hearing.
33As at the date of the motion, the Appellants have not indicated that any expert evidence will be called to support their Appeal, have not filed a Witness List or any witness statements, and have indicated that they do not intend to speak at the hearing unless asked to do so. The deadlines by which the Appellants could have informed of their intention to call evidence have since passed.
34Since submitting the County’s witness list and the witness statement of Barbara Mugabe, a personnel matter at the County has resulted in Ms. Mugabe being unavailable to provide evidence at the hearing.
35Jakob Van Dorp, who was Ms. Mugabe’s manager and is familiar and up to date on this file, has taken over carriage of this file and intends to testify in place of Ms. Mugabe.
36It is the intention of Mr. Van Dorp to rely on Ms. Mugabe’s written evidence and not file additional substantive materials, save and except for additional photographs taken of the Subject Lands. Mr. Van Dorp intends to limit his Witness Statement to his qualifications, steps taken to apprise himself of the file, his involvement in the file and an indication as to whether he agrees with Ms. Mugabe’s planning opinion on the application.
37Ms. Grove, counsel for the County, submitted that, in reviewing whether a Notice of Appeal contains disclosure of planning grounds that warrant a hearing, the Tribunal can take into consideration both the Notice of Appeal and the supporting evidence. (East Beach case).
38Ms. Grove submitted that there is no dispute that the Tribunal set out a deadline for the PO and issues list to be filed. The proposed list was filed despite not receiving consent from the Appellants within the Procedural Order deadline.
39The County, Ms. Grove added, has produced sufficient uncontested evidence, which will remain uncontested at the hearing for the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the County.
40Ms. Grove further submitted that the Appellants are required to put forward a case to which the County can respond. The Appellants have not done so. There are no apparent planning grounds that can support the Appellants’ case, nor are there any planning issues to which the County can respond.
The Appellants
41Mr. Hunter, in his oral arguments against the motion extracted from and referred to matters which are generally not issues for the hearing. He stated that he has made reports and complaints to various ministerial agencies, where investigation files were opened, and that he was still waiting for their replies. He alleged that the Town granted the rezoning and permit to build before proper ecological studies were done as required by the PPS before a development site alteration. He stated that he had contacted the “archaeological department” and they are in the midst of investigating this matter. The Saugeen First Nations (“S.F.N.”) objected to the building on the subject property when he was in correspondence with them, he added. (The County has countered that this was considered in the planning process and no such assessment study was required. The Tribunal notes that the S.F.N has not requested status in the proceedings).
42Mr. Hunter reiterated that his prospective planner Mr. Curtis has walked along Carlisle Street and opined that no transportation planner would advise any increase in usage, due to the narrowness and contours of the street. Further, Mr. Hunter stated that Mr. Curtis has opined to him that to have a retail commercial use in the rural use area did not make sense from a planning perspective and would be precedent-setting. The Tribunal can give no weight to Mr. Curtis’s purported opinion, as this is hearsay and Mr. Curtis did not file any statement or affidavit.
43Mr. Hunter stated that he objects to the substitution by Mr. Van Dorp as Ms. Mugabe was supposed to be the witness and he needed more time to review Mr. Van Dorp’s statement. Further, he is unfamiliar with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure; as such he should not be faulted in not complying and that he was shocked that the County has unreasonably asked for such high costs.
Findings
44The Tribunal finds that the Appellants neither presented any serious planning reasons nor evidence to substantiate a planning issue in the face of the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal.
45The Notice of Appeal itself listed many disparate reasons, at times couched in planning language, but the Tribunal notes that the many generalizations, mere apprehensions and bald statements in a notice of appeal are not sufficient to ground an appeal. There is no planning evidence provided to support the reasons in the notice of appeal.
46The Tribunal notes that the Appellants’ issues in the PO are not reflective of the reasons of appeal as stated in the Notice of Appeal and thus do not amount to apparent or authentic planning reasons or issues.
47The appeal was submitted on February 14, 2022. The Tribunal issued a PO on March 20, 2023, scheduling a two (2)-day hearing starting June 1, 2023. Submission deadlines of materials in advance of the hearing were contained in Attachment 1 thereto. The PO governs the proceedings.
48Attachment 1 to the PO required the Parties to provide the Witness List by April 6, 2023; the Witness/Expert Witness Statements by April 17, 2023; Parties' experts to meet on or before May 3, 2023 and to submit a Statement of Agreed Facts by May 17, 2023. The Appellants failed to abide by any of these deadlines. There is no evidence that the Appellants’ named expert participated in any experts meeting for the hearing of the Appeal. This demonstrated a lack of seriousness in pursuing their Appeal. The Tribunal cannot accept that an Appellant who chooses to proceed on his own account may be permitted to disregard the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Tribunal. All Appellants must familiarize themselves with the Rules and proceed accordingly. In any event, in this case, the required deadlines have been spelt-out clearly in the PO and there is no excuse for not following the stated requirements strictly.
49The Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) has previously noted that “frivolous” is characterized as a lack of seriousness, and “vexatious” as an action instituted without sufficient grounds for the purpose of causing trouble or annoyance. (Midland [Town] Zoning By-law 94-50 [Re] 1995 CarswellOnt 5227).
50The lack of authentic planning reasons in the notice of appeal, coupled with tardiness, neglect, or refusal to abide by the clear deadlines or provide information or materials, and the failure to cooperate with the County immediately before the due dates, serve no purpose other than to delay the appeal proceedings.
51In deciding whether there is authentic, genuine or legitimate planning reasons raised in the instant appeal, the Tribunal will consider the Appellants’ actions and whether the appeal is advanced for proper reasons.
52After filing the appeal, the Appellants failed to get ready for the appeal, and neglected or refused to comply with the deadlines ordered by the Tribunal which are expressly stipulated in the PO. The Appellants then failed to obtain or file a statement from their named expert witness. The Appellants did not deem it necessary to file a written reply or affidavit in reply to the County’s motion. The Appellants then came to the motion and scheduled appeal hearing with no land use planner and without any planning evidence that is capable of supporting the appeal or of any assistance to the Tribunal in determining the appeal in their favour.
53The Tribunal cannot ignore the fact that the logical consequence of the delay in proceedings is the proposed development being delayed. This was expressed by the Applicants in their oral support of the Motion to Dismiss.
54The Tribunal is persuaded by the course of events that the Appellants’ appeal is not filed with a genuine purpose. The Notice of Appeal contains a variety of topics and non-planning matters such as:
the Appellants noticing, in the spring of 2006, the Applicants operating a commercial business where the employees were loading, unloading, cleaning, repairing and storing kayaks and canoes and transporting same from 484 Carlisle Street to other locations on a daily basis through spring to early fall;
then in the spring of 2021, the Appellants observed additional substantial construction at 484 Carlisle Street, and upon reviewing a building permit issued by the Town of Saugeen Shores noted that a 379 square metre personal storage facility had been approved, and, during the summer months of 2021, the storage facility was well under construction and a large sign was put up, etcetera;
the Appellants described their ownership of a portion of Carlisle Street said to be registered to themselves and the numerous inherent rights attached to that ownership (which is not a planning matter nor within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction);
that 484 Carlisle Street is located in a rural area, and no retail or commercial businesses are located nearby;
that the Bruce County Official Plan, like all other Official Plans, is a blueprint for development;
and that expansion of retail or commercial uses should be in areas zoned for such.
55The Tribunal finds that the above matters listed in the Notice of Appeal for taking up the appeal are not authentic reasons. There is no apparent land use planning ground for the appeal. Further, the Appellants’ refusal to cooperate in the procedural process, demonstrates that the Appellants are attempting to delay the appeal.
Section 19(1)(c) OLTA
56The Appellants need to furnish some acceptable planning evidence that the Applicant’s proposed development on the Subject Lands would amount to bad planning. The County has provided planning evidence, presented by affiant in the Motion, that the OPA is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represents good planning. There is no contrary evidence from the Appellants. It is notable that the Appellants were wholly unprepared for the scheduled appeal hearing and were without any apparent planning evidence. The Appellants have no reasonable prospect of success and holding a full hearing will be a waste of the County’s and the Tribunal’s resources.
57The Appellants – despite informing the Tribunal that a named expert, Kevin Curtis, will be retained – have not made any efforts to file an expert statement nor provided any expert evidence to use at the hearing.
58Since the Appellants are not providing any evidence or planning evidence or to speak at the hearing unless asked to do so, there is no reasonable prospect of success for this appeal.
59The only evidence that will be proffered at the hearing is the uncontested evidence by the County that the OPA, which is the subject of this Appeal, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and constitutes good land use planning.
Summary
60The Tribunal finds that there is no authentic issue worthy of adjudication at a hearing. The Notice of Appeal does not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal.
61The Tribunal finds that there is no reasonable prospect of success of the appeal (s.19(1)(c) OLTA).
62The Tribunal finds that continuing with the hearing of this appeal is a waste of the County’s and the Tribunal’s resources.
63The appeal will be dismissed without a hearing. With the dismissal, there is no necessity to decide on the substitution of witnesses.
Costs
64Section 20 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act allows the Tribunal to order costs:
- 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, in accordance with the rules.
65The Ontario Land Tribunal Rules sets out when the Tribunal may order costs against a party:
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:
(a) failing to attend a hearing event or failing to send a representative when properly given notice, without contacting the Tribunal;
(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;
(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;
(d) a course of conduct necessitating unnecessary adjournments or delays or failing to prepare adequately for hearing events;
(e) failing to present evidence, continuing to deal with issues, asking questions or taking steps that the Tribunal has determined to be improper;
(f) failing to make reasonable efforts to combine submissions with parties of similar interest;
(g) acting disrespectfully or maligning the character of another party;
(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.
66Case law has established that the test for assessing whether costs should be awarded is the “reasonable person” test: “would a reasonable person, looking at all of the circumstances, conclude that the conduct was not right, that the conduct was not fair, and that the person ought to be obligated to another in some way for that kind of conduct”. (Manning Developments Inc. v. Lakeshore [Town] 2022 CarswellOnt 2880 at para 38 [Manning]).
67In Manning, at paragraph 39, the Tribunal referred to Midland (Town) Zoning By-law 94-50 (1995) 32 O.M.B.R. 3, in which the OMB defined the meanings of frivolous, vexatious, and unreasonable:
a. “Frivolous” means characterized by lack of seriousness;
b. “Vexatious” describes action instituted without sufficient grounds for the purpose of causing trouble or annoyance to another party; and
c. “Unreasonable” means irrational or not in accordance with common sense, including without making any effort at all. (Manning at para 39)
68In this case, the Appellants have consistently tried to raise issues regarding the ownership of Carlisle Street despite a determination by the Tribunal that this issue was outside the scope of its jurisdiction.
69The Appellants have consistently been late to CMCs despite being given the appropriate notice; have consistently failed to co-operate with the other Parties; have withheld consent on procedural matters despite the Tribunal’s direction to work with the other Parties; have ignored Tribunal directions by continually trying to introduce new issues; and have approached their appeal with a lack of seriousness.
70The County should not be expected to incur additional costs to participate in an appeal where the Appellants have neither met their responsibilities to prepare a case that can be responded to nor planned to call evidence. The Appellants informed the Tribunal that they do not wish to speak unless required. To require a hearing to go forward in these circumstances is a waste of County’s and of the Tribunal’s resources.
71The Tribunal has also found it appropriate to award costs in instances where a party has not introduced relevant evidence to advance its position at a hearing and does not approach the proceedings with seriousness. (Ross v. Sarnia [City] 2023 CarswellOnt 4996, at paras 14-15, 18, 20 [Ross]).
72The Tribunal notes that the County had filed a Bill of Costs for $46,000.00 together with the motion. The County is requesting partial indemnity in the sum of $18,500.00.
73The Tribunal’s authority to grant costs is contained in s. 20 of the OLTA and Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
74Ordinarily, the Tribunal is reluctant to award costs unless the conduct of the Appellant makes it reasonable and fair to do so. Examples of the circumstances where the Tribunal may award costs are laid out in rule 23.9.
75In the instant case, the Tribunal finds that the Appellants’ conduct in deliberately ignoring the deadlines for filing and documentary filing requirements, coupled with a lackadaisical attitude and lack of seriousness in proceeding with their appeal constitute proper grounds for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion and order the Appellants to compensate the County for its costs.
76The Appellants should have either pursued their appeal with due dispatch or come to the realization that they should discontinue the appeal for lack of interest or ability to carry on the appeal. Even at the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss, the Appellants continued to obstinately require a full hearing of the appeal which has no reasonable prospect of success whatever. The Appellants must be held accountable for the costs incurred for conduct, in particular the refusal to recognize the legitimate and peremptory directions in the PO. The consistent failure to comply strictly to the PO deadlines, which have not been ordered changed, is conduct that calls for an order of an award of costs against the defaulter for the non-compliance. The Tribunal views a breach of its orders seriously.
77For all of the above reasons, the Tribunal will exercise this discretion to grant costs of $5,000.00 to the County. This discretionary sum represents about ten percent of the total requested costs of the County and is appropriate to take into consideration the costs involved in preparation for the full hearing and preparation for the motion.
ORDER
78The Tribunal Orders that:
Time is abridged for service of the motion;
The County of Bruce’s Notice of Motion is allowed in part;
The Appeal is dismissed without a hearing;
Costs of $5,000.00 is ordered against the Appellants, to be paid to the County of Bruce within 14 days of this order, failing which, interest pursuant to s.129 of the Courts of Justice Act shall apply on the amount outstanding.
“T.F. NG”
T.F. NG 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.