Paula Lombardi

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing six minor variances to permit a rear addition and two-car garage on a residential property in London.

The appellant argued the variances for rear yard setback, lot coverage, and building depth were not minor and would cause a loss of privacy and usable amenity space.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, finding that the uniquely small lot justified the variances and that the integrated addition was in keeping with the neighbourhood character and Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law passed by the municipality to permit the development of two 2-storey apartment buildings.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was based on sound planning principles, complied with all relevant provincial policies and the Official Plan, and would result in no negative impact.

The appeal was dismissed for lacking planning merit.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario denying a request to reverse the cancellation of Quota Session QT-3-2018.

After hearing the evidence of the appellants, their counsel advised the Tribunal that all appellants wished to withdraw their appeals.

The appeals were withdrawn and no costs were sought.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the municipality's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

A local resident requested party status, which the Tribunal deferred until the appellant's issues are fully identified, noting that non-appellants must shelter under an appellant's issues.

The Tribunal directed the preparation of a Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a three-day video hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to post an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for a proposed trailer park's sewage works on the Environmental Registry for public comment.

The Minister relied on s. 32(1)(a) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which exempts proposals from posting if they are a step towards implementing a project approved by a tribunal after affording an opportunity for public participation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Minister's decision was reasonable, as the prior Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the trailer park development provided a sufficient opportunity for public participation concerning the sewage works.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) removing them from the New Producer Program (NPP) queue.

The DFO determined the appellants were ineligible because the husband held voting shares in his parents' dairy corporation, making him an existing producer under the Quota Policy.

The appellants argued the shareholding was minimal and they made an honest mistake on the application.

The Tribunal found the husband was a producer under the policy and that the appellants' mistake did not constitute unique or exceptional circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to award damages.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants requested a review of an April 2020 Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal regarding the Egg Farmers of Ontario's pullet leasing policies.

The appellants alleged ten material errors of fact and law in the original decision, primarily concerning the Tribunal's findings on lease fees, market demand, and whether the policies penalized new entrants.

The Vice-Chair found no material errors of fact or law in the original decision and denied the request for review.

The appellants, who are pullet and egg producers, appealed decisions of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding policies and procedures for leasing pullet quota.

The appellants challenged the May 2018 and January 2019 Pullet Leasing Pool Policies, arguing they were adopted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, and penalized new farmers.

The Tribunal found that EFO acted transparently, consulted with producers, and implemented the policies within its mandate to manage the quota system efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding that the policies were not punitive but served to fulfill the intended goals of the quota system.

The applicants, the City of Toronto and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim injunction to stop an arbitration between the respondents, Resource Productivity & Recovery Authority and Stewardship Ontario.

The applicants argued that the arbitration was not the proper forum to challenge a funding obligation decision and sought to have the matter determined by judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the arbitration to proceed as scheduled.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to wash water and solid waste from their truck washing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants resolved the issues with the Director and formally withdrew their appeals without requiring any alteration to the Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to solid waste and wash water generated by their truck washing facility.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference and issued an order setting the dates for the hearing and a schedule for disclosure.

The Concerned Citizens of Brant and the County of Brant appealed the issuance of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an aggregate washing operation at the Dufferin Aggregates Paris Pit.

The appellants sought revisions to the conditions of both instruments to provide greater protection to the local aquifer, particularly concerning water taking volumes, monitoring requirements, and the potential for atrazine contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving several revised conditions on consent of the parties, including clarifications to water taking limits and requirements for public posting of contingency plans.

However, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' requests for extensive additional monitoring and a new science risk assessment for atrazine, finding that the aquifer was not stressed, the existing conditions were sufficiently precautionary, and there was no credible threat of atrazine contamination from the operations.

The Directors and the Instrument Holder requested clarification of the remedy sought by the Appellants in their appeals of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Tribunal ordered the Appellants to provide particulars of their requested relief, including proposed wording for replacement conditions where possible, to promote an efficient and effective hearing process.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals by the Concerned Citizens of Brant and the Corporation of the County of Brant against the issuance of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval to CRH Canada Group Inc. for an aggregate washing operation.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions and set a schedule for the exchange of documents, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The court rejected the respondents' request for substantial indemnity costs and the appellants' request for no costs.

Instead, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, ordering the appellants to pay a total of $64,000 to the various respondents.

Following dismissal of an application alleging that a municipality and its mayor and councillors conspired in bad faith to block a bridge expansion project through heritage and demolition control by-laws, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found the allegations of conspiracy, illegality, and bad faith against the municipal defendants to be entirely without merit and emphasized that unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty justify elevated costs.

Applying the principles in s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded substantial full indemnity costs to the successful municipal respondents and individual councillors, subject to proportionality considerations reflecting differing levels of participation.

The court held that both the applicants and the Canadian Transit Company—though formally a respondent but aligned with the applicants—were jointly and severally responsible for the costs award.

Following an appeal involving a long-term municipal employee who lost his employment due to amalgamation, the Court of Appeal issued a brief endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal and the proceedings below at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondent, a middle manager for the former City of North York, was terminated following municipal amalgamation and unsuccessful job competitions.

The trial judge awarded 116 weeks' pay in lieu of notice, including an extension for bad faith conduct under Wallace, finding the employer's competition process was 'sloppy'.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, holding that the employer's conduct did not amount to bad faith or unfair dealing justifying a Wallace extension.

The court reduced the notice period to the 80 weeks originally offered by the employer.

The respondent's cross-appeal seeking reinstatement on the basis that he was an office holder was dismissed.