Paula Lombardi

The London District Catholic School Board applied for relief from the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA) provisions, specifically sections 5, 5.2, and 5.3, due to a quorum issue caused by seven of eight trustees declaring conflicts of interest.

These conflicts arose from family members being employed by the Board, particularly concerning the ratification of a collective agreement and the approval of the annual budget.

The court found that while section 7(3) of the MCIA (quorum less than two) was not engaged, the exemption under section 4(k) applied, as the pecuniary interests of the trustees were deemed too remote or insignificant to reasonably influence their decisions on these specific matters.

The court granted relief for the specific collective agreement and budgets but declined a sweeping general exemption for all future matters, emphasizing a case-by-case application of section 4(k) and the importance of self-policing and accountability.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste from a property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were awaiting the results of a survey to confirm the location of certain materials, which would facilitate a potential settlement.

The Tribunal ordered a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties time to receive the survey results and finalize the settlement.

The applicant and municipality brought a motion to dismiss a third-party appeal of an Official Plan Amendment that permitted a residential development.

The self-represented appellant failed to comply with the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, including failing to serve responding motion materials.

The Tribunal prohibited the appellant from participating in the motion due to his non-compliance and the resulting prejudice to the moving parties.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the appellant's issues failed to disclose any genuine planning grounds, lacked supporting expert evidence, and raised complaints about the municipal process that were outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The applicants sought a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) to permit the demolition and rebuilding of a cottage partially within a 100-year lakeshore erosion hazard.

The appellant, who owns nearby private roads and a mutual drain, appealed the Township's approval of the ZBA, arguing the development was premature due to unresolved issues with the deteriorating drain and private roads.

The appellant requested the ZBA be refused or approved subject to a holding symbol requiring the parties to address the infrastructure issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed development represents good planning, will not exacerbate existing drainage issues, and that a ZBA appeal is not the appropriate forum to resolve private or wider infrastructure disputes.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals against the City of London's Official Plan (The London Plan).

The appeals concern the proposed non-agricultural and natural heritage designations applied to the appellants' lands.

The order sets out the hearing dates, procedural requirements, list of parties, and the issues list to be determined at the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of London's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a 17-storey residential development.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several individuals and organizations.

A Procedural Order was issued to govern the upcoming eight-day hearing, with directions for the parties to resolve the final order of evidence.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation I setback from an abutting livestock operation to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and would not negatively impact future agricultural operations.

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

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a third-party appeal of an Official Plan Amendment that would permit residential development.

The self-represented appellant failed to participate in drafting the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the appellant an opportunity to contribute to the Procedural Order, and set deadlines for his participation.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of waste from a site.

During a case management conference, the parties jointly requested a stay of five items in the Order pending the appeal's resolution, and agreed to add two new items requiring notice to future successors in interest.

The Tribunal found that the waste, consisting of construction materials in a rural area, did not pose a danger to health, safety, or the environment under s. 143(3) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the stay and amended the Order on consent.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding various remaining site-specific appeals to the City of London's new Official Plan, the 'London Plan'.

The City brought a motion, on consent of the appellants, to approve modifications to Maps 1 and 5 to resolve several site-specific appeals.

Based on the uncontested affidavit evidence of a senior planner, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the London Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal approved the modifications, noted the withdrawal of several appeals, and scheduled future hearings and case management conferences for the remaining appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal regarding a proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the property at 380-396 Ontario Street in the City of Stratford.

The order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other evidence.

The appellant appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the development of a 46-unit, six-storey affordable housing apartment building on lands owned by a church.

The appellant raised concerns regarding building height, overdevelopment, and parking.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development represents appropriate residential intensification, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed in part solely to correct a typographical error in the Zoning By-law Amendment regarding the maximum permitted building height.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to organize the hearing of three related appeals concerning residential developments in the City of St. Thomas.

The Tribunal directed the finalization of the Issues List and scheduled an eight-day video hearing on the merits for May 2023.

One self-represented appellant was cautioned regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction and advised to seek professional assistance.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding the deposit and removal of waste at a property in St. Thomas.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were close to a settlement and expected to agree on a stay order for most of the action items.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft stay order by July 22, 2022, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for August 31, 2022.

The appellants appealed the assessments in an Engineer's Report prepared under section 78 of the Drainage Act for the improvement of the Dell Drain Outlet.

The proposed work involved extending the outlet to address severe gully erosion on downstream properties.

The Tribunal found that the erosion was primarily caused by water flowing from upstream lands and that the drain currently lacked a sufficient outlet.

The Tribunal amended the Schedule of Assessment, determining that the costs should be apportioned as 26% Benefit to the adjacent downstream properties and 74% Outlet Liability to the upstream lands and roads, and assessed a Special Benefit to lands subsequently connected to the drain.

The applicants appealed the City of London Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their consent and minor variance applications.

The applications sought to establish an easement for an existing building encroachment and to reduce side yard and parking area setbacks to facilitate the construction of a new single detached dwelling on a vacant lot.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Ontario Land Tribunal found that the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and met the statutory criteria under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granted provisional consent subject to conditions, and authorized the requested minor variances.

The applicant appealed the City of Sarnia Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a consent to sever a residential property to create one additional lot.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, finding the proposal represented good planning in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) required to build a residential dwelling on his farm property.

The neighbouring farm operated a liquid nutrient management tank, requiring a 537.4-metre separation, whereas the applicant sought a 300-metre separation.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the respondents that the variance was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not maintain the intent of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was not desirable, and was not minor.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Township of Adelaide Metcalfe brought a motion seeking a determination that the Ontario Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to arbitrate a dispute with the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc over a shared servicing agreement for water and sewer utilities.

Strathroy-Caradoc argued the agreement had expired and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under both s. 474.10.3(1)(j) and s. 474.10.16(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as the parties had agreed to binding arbitration in the event of a failure to negotiate a new agreement, and the dispute involved the mandatory supply of public utilities.

The Tribunal also granted an interim order requiring Strathroy-Caradoc to facilitate connections for three specific development properties pending a final resolution.

The applicant and the county brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a provisional consent to sever land for a townhouse development.

The appellant, a neighbouring resident, argued that the site included an improperly conveyed public road allowance and raised concerns about development in a floodplain.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that disputes over registered land ownership are outside its jurisdiction and must be resolved in the courts.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that floodplain and environmental issues, while legitimate planning concerns, are appropriately addressed through the related Zoning By-law Amendment process rather than the consent to sever, which deals only with land ownership and boundaries.