Rick F. Coburn

The Crown sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that overturned the respondent's conviction under the Endangered Species Act for damaging Blanding's turtle habitat.

The appeal judge had entered an acquittal after finding the circumstantial evidence of turtle sightings from prior and subsequent years insufficient to prove the land was habitat at the time of the offence.

The Court of Appeal held that while the appeal judge's conclusion raised a question of law alone, the Crown failed to demonstrate that granting leave was essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice.

The decision below was highly fact-specific and unlikely to establish a binding precedent requiring direct evidence of habitat use.

Leave to appeal was denied, and the respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an environmental compliance order concerning benzene emissions, three community members sought party status.

The Tribunal granted them party status under s. 145(1) of the Environmental Protection Act, finding their individual perspectives on health impacts would assist the adjudication.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant leave to amend its grounds for appeal in light of a new federal Interim Order and provincial regulation.

The applicants sought judicial review, including mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, and s. 24(1) Charter relief, of a Justice of the Peace's decision.

The Justice of the Peace had dismissed their s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay and deferred an abuse of process application in a provincial offences proceeding concerning alleged damage to Massasauga snake habitat.

The Superior Court dismissed the applicants' request for extraordinary relief, finding that the Justice of the Peace did not exceed or decline jurisdiction.

The court held that the issues raised were not appropriate for interlocutory intervention by a superior court, emphasizing that such matters are generally best addressed on appeal after the trial has concluded.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by INEOS Styrolution Canada Ltd. against a Director's Order and the suspension of its Environmental Compliance Approval related to benzene emissions.

The Aamjiwnaang First Nation requested and was granted party status without objection, given its direct interest and the health impacts experienced by its members.

The Tribunal also set dates for the first Case Management Conference and a two-day stay motion, and established a schedule for the exchange of motion materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 21, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal added the word 'maximum' to a section of the attachment regarding lot coverage.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Essex and the Municipality of Leamington regarding boarding houses and farm worker housing.

The parties reached a settlement that modified the amendments to remove pedestrian connection requirements, adjust occupancy thresholds for boarding houses, and clarify zoning for off-site farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the modified amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the applicable Official Plans, and represent good planning by supporting the agricultural sector and ensuring safe housing for farm workers.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal granted a consent order to consolidate the two appeals due to commonality and overlapping issues.

The Tribunal also set dates for a 15-day merit hearing and directed the parties to file a final procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers against the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals on consent of the parties.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on April 15, 2024, by video.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to adopt an official plan amendment to establish a secondary plan for a large master-planned community.

All parties except one landowner reached a settlement.

The opposing landowner argued the plan did not conform to the Greenbelt Plan due to proposed collector roads crossing the Greenbelt, and sought to have its lands excluded.

The Tribunal found that the approved Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) established conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and that the Tribunal should rely on it.

The Tribunal also found no planning basis to exclude the opposing landowner's lands from the comprehensive secondary plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the settlement plan in principle.

The defendants brought an application for disclosure of information related to four other land development projects, arguing it was relevant for full answer and defence, due diligence, and to demonstrate inconsistent application of environmental legislation by the Ministry.

The court determined that the materials sought were not first-party disclosure in the possession or control of the prosecution but rather third-party records held by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The court outlined the proper two-step process for a third-party production application, emphasizing the need to notify the record holder and any parties with privacy interests, and provided guidance on the Crown's duty to inquire.

The application for disclosure was not granted as first-party, but the court provided a procedural path for the defendants to pursue it as third-party production.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21, which regulates boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

The parties advised that the Superior Court of Justice recently quashed the related Official Plan Amendment No. 8 and directed the municipality to issue a fresh Notice of Adoption.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die to allow the municipality to fulfill the Court's directions and directed the parties to provide a written update by September 15, 2022.

Romandale Farms Ltd. brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding an official plan amendment for the Angus Glen Block.

Romandale argued the hearing should be delayed until the completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, potential permitting under the Endangered Species Act, and ongoing judicial review litigation concerning the proposed collector road network.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the necessity for approvals under other legislation is not a basis to adjourn a Planning Act hearing, and that an official plan amendment does not constitute an authorization to proceed with an undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers against the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21, which relates to minimum standards for boarding houses.

The Appellant advised of a pending court challenge to the related Official Plan Amendment No. 8 and suggested Tribunal-led mediation.

The Municipality requested scheduling a 10-day hearing.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing without a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, deeming it premature, and instead scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed the Vaughan Official Plan and the Vaughan Mills Centre Secondary Plan, seeking to convert a portion of their employment lands to a Mixed Use designation to permit residential development.

The tribunal applied the conversion tests under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

While finding that the proposed concept plan had qualitative merits and could address need, the tribunal concluded that the conversion failed to maintain a significant number of jobs on the lands and would adversely affect the overall viability of the surrounding employment area.

The tribunal denied the requested conversion and the related request to identify the lands as a Primary Centre, directing the parties to prepare modifications for a Phase 2 hearing.

The appellant appealed an order requiring the decommissioning of a bore hole that was discharging a contaminant.

After completing the required decommissioning work to the satisfaction of the Ministry, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal pursuant to Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice.

At a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Director's order to decommission a bore hole, the Environmental Review Tribunal considered requests for participant status and an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the resident of the property where the bore hole was located, finding she had a genuine interest and could make a relevant contribution.

The Tribunal also granted an adjournment of the preliminary hearing on consent of the parties, as the appellant was actively implementing the required work under the Ministry's supervision, which might render a full hearing unnecessary.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order confirming a Provincial Officer's Order requiring the decommissioning of a bore hole that was leaking natural gas.

After the bore hole was successfully decommissioned to the satisfaction of the Ministry, the appellants proposed to withdraw their appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawals and dismissed the appeals in accordance with Rule 199 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice.