Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 07, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-004875
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 2, as amended
Appellants:
Glenn Alford and Donna Barclay
Applicants:
Richard and Virginia McDole
Respondent:
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Subject of appeal:
Approval of a Development Permit Application to recognize the construction of a one-storey agricultural building on an existing lot that supports a single dwelling and accessory facilities
Reference No.:
H/A/2021-2022/351
Property Address:
8241 Twiss Road
Municipality/UT:
Town of Milton, Region of Halton
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004875
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004875
OLT Case Name:
Alford and Barclay v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard:
June 5, 2023 by Telephone Conference Call (“TCC”)
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Glenn Alford and Donna Barclay
No one appearing
Richard and Virginia McDole
Self-Represented
Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”)
Joseph Muller and Ginny Hang
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WARREN MORRIS on JUNE 5, 2023 and order of the tribunal
1The Tribunal Member constitutes as a Hearing Officer and the Tribunal functions as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO”) for appeals under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”).
2This Decision arises from a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) brought before the NEHO regarding the appeal brought by Glenn Alford and Donna Barclay of a decision of the NEC dated November 16, 2022, conditionally approving an application for a Development Permit to recognize the construction of a one-storey agricultural building (run-in shelter for two part-time horses).
3Prior to the CMC, the NEC sent correspondence to all Parties that it would not be seeking party or participant status and would not be participating in the CMC. After reviewing the reasons for appeal, the NEC was of the belief that the structure that was the subject matter of the appeal did not relate to the Appellants’ concerns and therefore, the NEC did not have an interest in the proceedings.
4Prior to the CMC, the Applicants sent correspondence to all the Parties that they request that OLT dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the grounds that the appeal is frivolous and vexatious.
5At the previous CMC on March 27, 2023, the Parties indicated their willingness to attempt to settle the appeal on their own through discussions and negotiations. In view of a potential settlement, the Hearing Officer adjourned the CMC to June 5, 2023 and ordered the Parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in the event the matter did not settle. No draft Procedural Order, Issues List, nor Minutes of Settlement were filed with the Tribunal in advance of the CMC.
6At the CMC, no one appeared on behalf of the Appellants. The Hearing Officer held the matter down and had the Case Coordinator reach out to the Appellants. The Hearing Officer was later informed that the Appellants were not aware of the scheduled CMC as the Appellants did not receive the Memorandum of Oral Decision issued on April 27, 2023. The Appellants were not available to join the CMC teleconference call at that moment.
7At the CMC, the Applicant, Glenn Alford, requested that the Hearing Officer consider dismissing the appeal on the grounds submitted in his email. The Hearing Officer refused to consider a motion to dismiss the appeal as the request from the Applicants’ request did not comply with Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). The Applicants informed the Hearing Officers that they had difficulties understanding the OLT Rules and had sought preliminary legal advice but unfortunately, the cost of hiring a lawyer was disproportionate to the situation. The Applicants indicated that they would attempt to serve and file a Notice of Motion to Dismiss in accordance with the Rules, as best they could.
8The Hearings Officer stated that if the Applicants do proceed with a motion to dismiss, the motion should be in accordance with Rule 10, and shall be in writing adhering to the timelines in Rule 10.3. In other words, the motion should be served within 15 days of receipt of this Order, and responses should be served within seven days of the moving party’s notice of written motion.
HEARING DETAILS
9A TCC has been scheduled to proceed on Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10 a.m.
10Individuals are directed to call 416-212-8012 or (Toll-Free) 1-866-633-0848 on the assigned date at the correct time. When prompted, enter the code 4779874# to be connected to the call. It is the responsibility of the person(s) participating in the call to ensure that they are properly connected to the call and at the correct time. Questions prior to the call may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
11The Tribunal orders the Case Management Conference adjourned to a Telephone Conference Call on Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10 a.m.
12Any motion to dismiss this appeal shall be made in writing and is in accordance with Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
13This Hearing Officer is not seized.
14There will be no further notice.
“Warren Morris”
WARREN MORRIS
HEARING OFFICER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.