Robert Howe

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated July 31, 2022, pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The amendment replaced paragraph 7 of the original decision to specify that the appeals are allowed in part and that Town of New Tecumseth By-laws 2021-165 and 2021-166 are amended by replacing their current Schedules B and C with amended schedules.

The appellants appealed the Town of New Tecumseth's Development Charges By-law 2021-165 under section 14 of the Development Charges Act.

The parties reached a settlement proposing amendments to the schedules of the by-law.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of a professional land economist and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal found the proposed adjustments to be reasonable, in the public interest, and in accordance with the Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law schedules.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss Dunpar Homes' appeal of the City's Parkland Conveyance By-law without a hearing, arguing the notice of appeal failed to set out sufficient objections and reasons as required by s. 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Dunpar argued that an earlier draft of its appeal letter was inadvertently filed electronically, but that it still contained sufficient planning grounds, and that a correct hard copy was also served.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's motion, finding that the electronic notice of appeal provided a sufficient 'originating core' of planning grounds, specifically that the by-law failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies, and that the appeal should not be dismissed on an overly technical basis.

The Appellants sought approvals for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plans of Subdivision to facilitate a large residential development.

The central issue was whether a 14-unit portion of the development (Block 1 Stage 5), which required a private roadway through a Natural Heritage Feature and Area (NHFA), should be permitted.

The Tribunal denied the development of Block 1 Stage 5, finding that the roadway would negatively impact the NHFA's ecological functions and wildlife linkages, rendering it inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also reviewed various conditions of Draft Plans approval, striking down conditions that unlawfully required the developer to fund non-local services or convey lands for purely environmental purposes without compensation.

The balance of the development was approved in principle, subject to resolving parkland dedication requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Brampton's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 206-210 (Heritage Heights Secondary Plan).

The parties agreed to collaborate on policy wording and continue drafting the Procedural Order and Issues List, with a focus on resolving issues related to the GTA West Corridor.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference for July 6, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order by June 22, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 206-210 (Heritage Heights Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Peel, and participant status to TC Energy.

The Tribunal also established a schedule for the parties to finalize a Consolidated Issues List and a draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for March 23, 2023.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the municipality's development charge by-law.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent and requested a ten-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for July 2023 and issued the Procedural Order to govern the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the hearing plan and procedural directions for appeals concerning the redevelopment of the Glen Abbey golf course.

The Tribunal approved a segmented hearing approach, scheduling a five-week block in 2022 for technical discipline evidence, and finalized a four-day per week hearing plan for the main hearing commencing in August 2021.

Additional directions were provided regarding electronic document submission, verbatim reporting, and a strict prohibition against unauthorized recording of the proceedings.

This action involved a counterclaim by an estate and its beneficiaries against a former plaintiff for the conversion of estate assets.

The former plaintiff's initial claim was discontinued, and his defenses to the counterclaim were struck, leading to an assessment of damages.

The court determined the value of converted assets and, after accounting for the former plaintiff's residuary interest, granted judgment against him.

Remaining estate assets were ordered to be vested in the beneficiaries.

In an interjurisdictional spousal support variation proceeding arising from a provisional order made in Nova Scotia, the court found the record insufficient to determine the parties' present rights and obligations.

The court directed that extensive additional financial disclosure be obtained from the applicant under s. 33(2) of the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002, including income breakdowns, investment withdrawals, pension-related information, delay explanation, a fresh financial statement, equalization status, and an updated arrears statement.

Pending receipt of that information, the court exercised its authority under s. 33(3) to make a temporary support variation order.

Temporary spousal support was fixed at $900 per month commencing May 1, 2015, and the matter was adjourned.

The appellant sought to adjourn its motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The appellant discovered that a witness who testified at the Board hearing had previously made a presentation to Board members, prompting the appellant to commence an application for judicial review regarding procedural fairness.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that it would be an inefficient use of court resources to hear the leave to appeal motion when the underlying decision could potentially be declared a nullity through the judicial review application.

The applicant, owner of a service station converted into a billiard hall and coffee bar, applied to remove conditions from his liquor licence that prohibited live or recorded music and restricted hours of sale.

The application was opposed by the Registrar and local residents due to concerns about noise, public urination, and the applicant's hostile behaviour towards neighbours.

The Board found no significant change in circumstances since a previous denial in 2005 and concluded that removing the conditions would adversely affect the residential neighbourhood.

The application was denied.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their application for a declaration that the insured was dead under section 208 of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge had relied on hearsay evidence from an investigator regarding statements made by the insured's sister, which suggested the insured had planned to fake his death.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by using this hearsay evidence for a truth purpose without properly applying the principled approach to hearsay.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.