Peter Pickfield

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties requested a further continuation of a previously granted stay of portions of the Director's Order, on consent, to allow time to finalize a detailed work plan.

The Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay under the Environmental Protection Act and granted the continuation of the stay until March 28, 2018.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties had been working on a conceptual site model and requested more time to finalize it.

The Director consented to the request.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until December 28, 2017.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request while the parties worked to finalize a conceptual site model.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it was not precluded from granting the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until October 27, 2017.

The appellants requested a continuation of a stay of portions of a Director's Order relating to environmental contamination on three properties in Hamilton.

The Director consented to the request to allow the parties time to finalize a conceptual site model and prepare for carrying out the order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant the stay and ordered the continuation of the stay until September 28, 2017.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order regarding contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The Tribunal previously granted a stay of certain portions of the Order.

The parties requested a further adjournment and a continuation of the stay on consent to allow experts to consider and respond to the Director's comments on a proposed work program.

Finding no statutory bar, the Tribunal granted the continuation of the stay.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to the presence and migration of contaminants on three properties in Hamilton.

The parties jointly requested a stay of certain portions of the order to allow time for expert meetings and potential resolution.

The Tribunal found no statutory bar to the stay and granted it on consent until December 31, 2016.

The appellant appealed a municipal council's decision to refer an Engineer's Report back to the engineer under the Drainage Act.

The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority brought a motion for party status.

The Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 45(2) because the Act does not provide an appeal right when a report is referred back to the engineer.

Finding that the appeal essentially challenged the validity of the council's resolution, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Drainage Referee pursuant to s. 106(1)(b), the Tribunal transferred the matter to the Referee under s. 119.

Consequently, the motion for party status was deemed academic.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Ontario Municipal Board's finding that an amendment to the City of London's Official Plan (OPA 403) was valid.

The appellants argued that OPA 403 impermissibly delegated authority by making a separate guideline determinative in designating woodlands as significant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the respondents that the Official Plan remains paramount and the City's discretion is not fettered by the guideline.

The appellant Township appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision that approved a zoning by-law amendment for a specialty stone quarry without requiring the respondent to rebuild an access road to current municipal standards.

The Township argued that its Official Plan mandated a road maintenance agreement prior to rezoning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision reasonable.

The Court held that the Official Plan provision was discretionary and specifically applied to gravel trucks, which was inapplicable as the site would not extract gravel.

The Board properly considered the Planning Act requirements regarding transportation needs and municipal finances.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Hearing Officer's decision declaring jurisdiction to proceed with a hearing regarding an amended Plan for the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area.

The applicants argued that an investigation and survey under s. 3(2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act was a condition precedent to amending the Plan following a boundary alteration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the statutory requirement for an investigation and survey only applied when the Area was originally established, not for subsequent boundary amendments.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application regarding a municipal meeting held on March 29, 2000.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's finding that the meeting complied with the spirit and purpose of the Planning Act.

Any minor deficiencies were deemed de minimis.

The court declined to hear a new argument regarding the County's obligations under the Planning Act because it raised factual issues not explored below.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.