Paula Lombardi

The appellants challenged the dismissal of an application concerning the location and scope of a right-of-way serving their land-locked lot, the effect of a later agreement, alleged interference caused by a fence, and an oppression claim against a not-for-profit corporation connected to the development.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge was entitled to find that the governing right-of-way was created by a 1961 shareholder resolution, that the 1974 agreement did not create a different route, and that the fence did not substantially interfere with the granted easement.

The court also rejected a new regulatory theory concerning conservation authority approval and found no evidentiary basis for the oppression claim.

Applying deferential appellate review, the court found no palpable and overriding error or extricable legal error and dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation for injurious affection and business losses under the Expropriations Act arising from a road reconstruction project.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, scheduling a four-day video hearing to commence on March 1, 2027, and setting out the timetable for pre-hearing steps including discoveries, mediation, and exchange of expert reports.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions but had not finalized an agreement.

The Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing for August 10, 2026, directing that if a settlement is not reached by then, the hearing will be converted to a Case Management Conference to set dates for a hearing on the merits.

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions to settle several appeals regarding site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment 59.

The settlements proposed expanding settlement area boundaries and converting employment lands to residential and commercial uses.

Sifton Properties Limited contested the settlements, arguing that a quantitative land needs assessment was required under the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 prior to approval.

The Tribunal found that the PPS 2024 removed the requirement for a municipal comprehensive review for boundary expansions, allowing for incremental expansions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and supportive of providing local housing options.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order concerning the management and transport of excess soils.

The parties submitted a finalized Procedural Order.

The Tribunal accepted the Procedural Order and scheduled a one-day motion hearing and a 10-day merit hearing to resolve the appeal.

The appellants sought a stay of a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to prepare a work plan to characterize liquid excess soil deposited on the subject property.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and compliance prior to a hearing constituted irreparable harm due to mootness, the balance of convenience favoured the Director and the public interest in protecting drinking water sources.

The motions for a stay were denied, but the Tribunal granted alternative relief by extending the compliance deadlines by nine weeks.

The Township of Adelaide Metcalfe applied for leave to appeal the MECP Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for stormwater management works at a proposed fertilizer storage facility.

The Township raised concerns about the risk of spontaneous combustion of fertilizer pellets and the potential for fire-fighting water run-off to overflow the stormwater ponds and contaminate the local watershed.

The Tribunal found that the Township had standing to appeal but failed to satisfy the two-part test for leave under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the stormwater ponds were appropriately sized to contain worst-case storm events and fire-fighting run-off, and that the decision was reasonable and would not result in significant environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to prepare a work plan to characterize liquid excess soil at the subject property.

During a status update call, the appellants confirmed partial compliance with the Order and sought to stay the remaining items.

The Tribunal scheduled a stay motion hearing and set filing dates, noting that an interim stay order was unnecessary as the motion would be heard before the compliance dates for the remaining items.

The Municipality of Thames Centre and the County of Middlesex brought an uncontested motion for directions to approve certain modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 27 (OPA 27).

The modifications resolved the appeal by Fred Jamieson regarding Additional Residential Units and re-designated specific lands from Agricultural to Rural Industrial.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modifications were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the modifications and brought into effect the policies not subject to the remaining appeal by Sifton Properties Limited, which was adjourned sine die.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a development permit application by the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and scheduled a seven-day Merit Hearing to commence on April 9, 2026.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List provided on consent of the parties.

The Municipality of Grey Highlands appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce the interior side yard setback from 15 m to 6 m for a single detached dwelling on an undersized lot in an agricultural zone.

The Tribunal heard competing expert planning evidence regarding whether the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the applicants' planners, finding that the Zoning By-law explicitly contemplates the proposed residential use on undersized lots.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions and the development of a concrete management plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for April 8, 2026, to either schedule hearing dates or consider a proposed settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 5-day hearing scheduled to commence on May 25, 2026.

The hearing concerns an appeal by the applicant under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act regarding the township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit 30 medium density dwelling units.

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions regarding a settlement motion concerning appeals of an Official Plan Amendment.

While the Consensus Parties suggested the motion proceed in writing due to the highly nuanced nature of the arguments, the responding party preferred an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal found that the submissions would be highly nuanced and ordered the settlement motion to proceed in writing, setting a schedule for the exchange of materials.

The appellant appealed the City of London's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey, 10-unit apartment building on a property adjacent to an environmentally significant area.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included rezoning a portion of the property as open space to act as a buffer, transferring it to the City, and implementing an environmental management plan.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, allowing the appeal in part to approve the amended by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Windsor's refusal of applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Proposed Plan of Subdivision to permit a 27-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, consolidated the appeals, and scheduled a five-day merit hearing for April 2026.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 59.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed policy revisions regarding residential density and Special Policy Area #29-A are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conform to the County Official Plan, and represent good land use planning.

The appellant appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 10 (OPA 10), which expanded the settlement area boundary of the Village of Lucan.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to further amend OPA 10 by redesignating the subject agricultural lands to a Residential Special Policy Area to accommodate future residential growth.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement agreement consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed to approve OPA 10 as modified by the settlement.

The applicants, property owners along Erie Shore Drive, appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee regarding preliminary issues in their application for damages against the municipality for failing to maintain and repair the Burk Drainage Works.

The municipality cross-appealed the Referee's finding that section 79 of the Drainage Act is a strict liability provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Referee's findings that the applicants' initial notice was insufficient, that damages are limited to those occurring 45 days after proper notice is given, that historical seawalls had been lawfully replaced rather than abandoned, and that section 79 imposes strict liability without requiring proof of common law injurious affection.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision regarding a Site Plan Application for an 11-unit townhouse development.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement resolving all outstanding issues.

The Tribunal denied late requests for party and participant status from area residents to avoid prejudice to the proceedings.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence and the settlement, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the revised Site Plan was approved subject to agreed-upon conditions.