Peter Pickfield

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to cease discharging raw sewage from its septic tanks into the leaching bed and to retain a licensed waste hauler.

Following an Interim Settlement Agreement, the appellant applied for an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an upgraded wastewater treatment system.

At a status hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal was advised that the ECA was expected to be issued within two months.

The Tribunal ordered a further status hearing to be held on August 25, 2022, to provide an update and confirm ongoing compliance with the settlement agreement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an expansion to an existing cottage, a new boathouse, and a new dock on an undersized island property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle, subject to site plan approval.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an expansion to an existing cabin and the construction of a new boathouse and dock on an island property.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were working towards a settlement but required a site visit by ecologists.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing.

The applicants sought $125,000 in costs following a successful application under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, alleging the respondent municipality engaged in unreasonable conduct by shifting its position, failing to present evidence, and maligning character.

The Normal Farm Practices Protection Board dismissed the applicants' costs request, finding the municipality's conduct was not unreasonable.

The Board awarded the municipality $1,000 in costs for having to respond to the applicants' substantially meritless costs request.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding outstanding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 48.

The Tribunal approved a settlement between Loblaws Properties Limited and the City, modifying urban design policies to provide flexibility for building entrances and facades.

The Tribunal found the modifications represented good planning and were consistent with provincial policies.

A procedural order was also issued for the remaining appeal by Abode Varsity Living Inc. concerning purpose-built student housing policies.

The appellants appealed the Township of Norwich's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a reduced Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) for a new hog barn and recognized an existing mobile home as an accessory dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting expert planning evidence that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, conformed to the Official Plan, and appropriately supported agricultural uses in a prime agricultural area without adversely impacting natural heritage features or neighbouring properties.

A case management conference was held to consider hearing appeals related to the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment 119, Zoning By-law Amendment 2020-418, and the new Official Plan together.

The Tribunal ordered the matters to be heard together for case management purposes.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a motion by 409 Brant St. Ltd., finding that ZBA 2020-418 does not apply to its site, which had the statutory effect of releasing the site from the Interim Control By-law and reinstating its prior zoning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law.

The amendment sought to permit a floating dock and remove a holding provision to confirm the high-water mark.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence for a five-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 28, 2022.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit the construction of a new veal barn and an increase in permitted livestock.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order establishing the issues list, witness requirements, and schedule for the upcoming video hearing.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton advised that it is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review that may result in an urban boundary expansion, potentially resolving many appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 4, 2021, to allow time for the City to provide direction on the boundary expansion and for the parties to prepare an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a floating dock and remove a holding provision.

A protective society was granted party status on consent.

The parties requested additional time to finalize an Issues List and Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing and set a deadline for the submission of the Procedural Order.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hauled sewage disposal facility.

Before the application was decided, the Director revoked the underlying Environmental Compliance Approval.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal as moot.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring it to perform work on its on-site septic system.

Following mediation, the parties entered into an Interim Settlement Agreement setting out technical steps for rehabilitation and monitoring.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference call where the parties provided an update on the implementation of the agreement.

The Tribunal ordered a further status update to be held by telephone conference call.

The appellant appealed the decision of the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue an amended permit to take water to the instrument holder for quarry operations.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement that did not require any changes to the permit, and the appellant agreed to withdraw its appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding as the appeal was withdrawn on consent without altering the decision under appeal.

The appellant, Wessuc Inc., appealed a Provincial Officer's Order requiring it to cease operation of a vehicle and retain a Qualified Person to inspect and repair it for emissions tampering.

Following several prehearing conference calls, the appellant complied with the Order and withdrew its appeal.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the appeal in accordance with its Rules of Practice.

The appellants appealed the Director's refusal to approve a Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan for a joint farming operation.

The Director refused the plan on the basis that a proposed NASM storage lagoon, owned by a waste management company, was a non-agricultural operation and required an Environmental Compliance Approval under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Director erred by focusing solely on the storage lagoon rather than the entire agricultural operation.

The Tribunal concluded that the joint operation was an agricultural operation, the lagoon was not an intermediate operation, and the facility was exempt from EPA approval requirements.

The appeal was allowed and the NASM plan was approved.

The appellants appealed the Director's refusal to approve a Non-Agricultural Source Material (NASM) plan.

During a pre-hearing conference, the parties agreed that mediation would not be helpful due to a dispute over statutory interpretation.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting the schedule for document exchange, witness statements, and the hearing dates.

The appellant nursing home brought a motion for a stay of a Director's Order requiring it to pump and dispose of sewage off-site due to a malfunctioning septic system.

The appellant argued that the costs of compliance would cause irreparable financial harm, potentially leading to closure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to prove irreparable harm, as the short-term costs were not shown to be fatal to the business.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the Director's precautionary approach to protect water resources.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties.

The appellants requested a continuation of a previously granted stay of certain portions of the Director's Order while they finalized a conceptual site model and work plan.

The Director consented to the request.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay on consent.