Patrick Kraemer

The City of Hamilton brought a motion seeking permission to serve supplementary expert reports and an amended Statement of Response past the deadlines prescribed in the Schedule of Events.

The motion was unopposed by the other parties.

The Assessment Review Board granted the motion, finding that late service was an appropriate consequence for non-compliance given the lack of prejudice and the promptness of the motion.

The Board also confirmed that the City is permitted to adduce evidence regarding the income approach to value at the hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion for disclosure in the context of property assessment appeals concerning a distribution centre tenanted by Amazon.

The City sought various documents, including construction costs, lease agreements, and operating expenses, to support its cost and income valuation approaches.

The Assessment Review Board applied the two-part test of relevance and proportionality.

The Board granted the requests for construction costs, the property's purchase agreement, leases, and inspection photographs, finding them relevant and proportionate.

However, the Board denied the requests for operating expenses and recoverable charges, as they were not limited to a particular timeframe and were therefore overbroad.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their consent and minor variance applications by the Town of Ingersoll Committee of Adjustment.

The applications sought to create a flag-shaped residential infill lot in the backyard of an existing property, requiring relief from minimum lot frontage requirements.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consents were granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals concerning the Region of Waterloo's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 128.

The order sets out the organization of the video hearing scheduled for November 6, 2023, the requirements before the hearing including the exchange of witness statements and expert reports, and the issues list.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by Joseph and Laura Puopolo against the Region of Waterloo's adoption of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (ROPA 2).

The settlement proposed utilizing the appellants' lands as a stormwater retention pond and outlet facility, freeing up other lands within ROPA 2 for residential development without expanding the urban area.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the Regional Official Plan, allowed the appeal in part, and amended ROPA 2 accordingly.

The appellant appealed the engineer's report for the McNain Municipal Drain Improvements under sections 48(1) and 54(1) of the Drainage Act.

The appellant challenged the design of a drop structure on their property, the damage allowances, and the assessments levied against them, including a Section 24 Special Benefit assessment for additional engineering costs.

The Tribunal granted the appeals in part, ordering minor modifications to the drop structure design and reducing the Section 24 Special Benefit assessment from $60,000 to $30,000, finding that the improved design also benefited upstream lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's requests for damage allowances and changes to the Benefit/Outlet cost split.

Blueridge Cedar Ltd. appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to construct an agricultural accessory building on a landlocked property.

The property was accessible only by an unimproved right-of-way over steep and environmentally sensitive terrain.

The Hearing Officer found that the proposed development did not meet the requirement for frontage onto a public road under the municipal official plan, and therefore failed to accord with the development criteria of the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision was confirmed.