Sam Greenlaw

The defendant municipality appealed an interlocutory order of an Associate Justice granting the plaintiff leave under Rule 31.03(2)(b) to conduct a limited, one-hour examination for discovery of a second corporate representative, supplemented by up to two pages of written questions.

The appellant argued the Associate Justice committed palpable and overriding errors by relying on a non-existent agreement between the parties regarding a hybrid examination process and by misapplying the strict test for examining a second corporate representative.

The court found the Associate Justice correctly applied the test from Fischer v. IG Investment Management Ltd., made findings grounded in the record, and fashioned a proportionate remedy addressing discovery incompleteness.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application seeking to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from nearby livestock facilities to permit the construction of a residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the municipality revised its position to support a partial reduction in the setbacks, while the appellant sought further reductions to maximize the buildable area.

The Tribunal authorized the municipality's proposed variances, finding they represented a balanced approach that provided a reasonable development opportunity while protecting agricultural resources and minimizing impacts on the adjacent farm.

The appellant's requested further reductions were denied as they failed to have appropriate regard for the MDS Guidelines and the public interest.

The parties requested an adjournment at the commencement of a two-day merit hearing concerning a minor variance appeal, indicating that a settlement was imminent but required further due diligence.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the complexity of the case, and scheduled a new two-day merit hearing out of an abundance of caution in case the settlement does not fully materialize.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and its failure to make a decision on a Consent application, to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement supporting the proposal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional and local official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed, the amendments were approved, and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.