Sarah Hahn

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Permit to Take Water issued for aggregate washing at the Teedon Pit.

The parties could not agree on a joint Issues List, with the Director objecting to issues relating to sewage works and the characterization of water resources.

The Tribunal directed the parties to exchange written positions to finalize the Issues List and declined to schedule the hearing until the Procedural Order and Issues List are resolved.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal initiated a motion to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 67-unit residential building.

The appellant, a self-represented individual, failed to provide expert planning evidence or demonstrate a triable issue, relying instead on broad questions and an affidavit from a local resident planner who could not provide independent expert opinion.

Applying the East Beach test, the Tribunal found the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground worthy of adjudication and dismissed the appeal without a hearing pursuant to s. 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. against the Town of Collingwood's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Silver Glen Condo Corporation and three individuals.

The applicant presented a descoped appeal proposal, and the Tribunal directed the provision of updated mapping.

A follow-up Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances sought to retroactively validate exterior alterations made to accommodate wheelchair access.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving amended variances and conditions to remove certain paved areas to ensure proper drainage.

The Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor, desirable, and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances to legalize an existing aerodrome structure as a detached garage on a waterfront property.

The variances sought to increase the maximum ground floor area, lot coverage, and height.

The Tribunal found that the proposed garage, given its location and existing vegetative screening, would not dominate the natural environment or create a visual distraction.

The Tribunal authorized the variances, concluding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The applicants sought a zoning by-law amendment to rezone a rural property to a site-specific industrial exception zone to permit future industrial development.

The appellants, who reside on an adjacent property, appealed the Township's approval of the amendment, arguing it was incompatible with their residential use and inconsistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plans, and includes adequate special provisions and holding symbols to mitigate impacts and ensure compatibility.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a non-decision by the County of Simcoe on a site-specific official plan amendment.

The County brought a motion, on consent, to consolidate this appeal with an existing site-specific appeal concerning the County's Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation motion.

The Tribunal declined to issue an order approving the balance of the Township's Official Plan without a formal written motion, noting jurisdictional uncertainties under section 17(40) of the Planning Act.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal against a zoning by-law amendment permitting a 67-unit residential building, the self-represented appellant advised he would not call professional witnesses but would rely on resident submissions.

Citing the cost and time implications, the applicant and the City expressed concerns.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a written Motion to Dismiss.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit expansion, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals on consent.

The Tribunal also substituted the Federation of Tiny Township Shoreline Associations for an individual objector.

A pending motion to consolidate an appeal regarding a permit to take water was scheduled to be heard at the next Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a request for consent to sever a corner lot to create an additional lot fronting onto Stokes Drive.

The Tribunal heard from three land use planners.

The Tribunal found that the creation of one additional lot within an existing plan of subdivision in a designated settlement area can be determined through the satisfaction of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

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 claimant brought a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

At the sixth Case Management Conference, the respondent requested a three-month adjournment to retain an outside planner and respond to the claimant's expert reports, which contained unexpected allegations and a higher injurious affection claim.

The claimant requested that any further hearing be peremptory.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a seventh, peremptory Case Management Conference.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application and a related plan amendment application by the Township of Clearview.

The Hearing Officer addressed the impact of the upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal Act on participant and presenter status.

The Hearing Officer also resolved disagreements between the parties regarding the draft Procedural Order, specifically concerning the scheduling of an evening session and the wording of several items on the Consolidated Issues List.

The Township of Tay sought an interlocutory injunction to stop the respondents from operating a large-scale cannabis grow operation in a residential area zoned Village Commercial (C1), which violated the Township's Zoning By-Law.

The respondents, licensed for medical cannabis production, argued the by-law was vague and that their activities were for personal medical use.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for interlocutory injunctions, finding the Township had a strong prima facie case, would suffer irreparable harm (due to by-law enforcement in the public interest), and the balance of convenience favored the Township.

The injunction was granted, effective January 15, 2019, to allow relocation.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend a building permit issued by the town for the construction of a dock on a neighbouring waterfront property.

The applicant argued the proposed location differed from a previously approved site plan and would eventually house a boathouse that would obstruct his view.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the planning process, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm from the dock's construction, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent property owner.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding they breached a home renovation contract with the respondent contractor.

The dispute arose when the appellants refused to pay a full $20,000 progress invoice, citing concerns over incomplete work and the statutory 10% holdback requirement under the Construction Lien Act.

The contractor subsequently stopped work, registered a lien, and terminated the contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in concluding the appellants had run out of money and acted unreasonably.

The Court held that the contractor breached the contract by terminating it precipitously, and ordered a new trial on damages.

Following a successful application confirming user in common rights on a subdivision plan, the applicants sought costs of $51,593.86.

The respondent landowners argued the amount was excessive for a one-day hearing.

The respondent municipality also sought costs against the respondent landowners.

The court awarded the applicants $45,000 in partial indemnity costs, finding the claimed amount excessive despite the complexity of the historical real estate issues.

The municipality was awarded $2,500 in costs for its helpful submissions, though its costs were reduced because it remained adverse in interest to the applicants until the morning of the hearing.

The applicants, owners of lots on a 1950 plan of subdivision, sought a declaration that certain lots designated as an 'area of user common to each property owner' remained subject to those rights.

The respondent owners of the fee simple in those common lots argued the rights had expired under the Registry Act and were extinguished upon conversion to the Land Titles system.

The court held that the dedication created valid, subsisting quasi-public rights and easements that were openly enjoyed and thus saved from expiry under the Registry Act.

The court declared the lands remain subject to the applicants' rights and prohibited the respondents from interfering with them.