Sara J. Premi

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent application to sever lands owned by CN Rail.

During the hearing, evidence emerged that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) and Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) opposed the development but had not been formally notified of the appeal.

The Tribunal determined it had a duty to ensure adequate notice was provided to affected Indigenous peoples pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and provincial planning policies.

The Tribunal directed notice be given to HDI, which subsequently requested party status.

The hearing was adjourned on consent of all parties to allow for settlement negotiations and to address HDI's status request.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple cannabis operators against the Town of Pelham's Official Plan Amendment No. 09 and Zoning By-law No. 4252 (2020).

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions but requested the scheduling of a merits hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing to commence on January 24, 2022, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Edwards dated June 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered costs in the amount of $5,000 to be paid to the responding parties within thirty days, to be divided among them as they deem reasonable.

The applicant moved to quash an interim control by-law and its extending by-law enacted by the respondent municipality, alleging illegality and bad faith.

The applicant also claimed damages for misfeasance in public office and misrepresentation.

The court found that the emergency meeting where the by-law was enacted met procedural and statutory requirements, including being open to the public.

The court held that the municipality's actions, including extending the by-law due to delays in adopting the Official Plan, were justified and did not demonstrate bad faith.

The motion was dismissed.

The Conservation Review Board held a settlement conference regarding objections by the property owners to Notices of Intention to Designate four properties issued by the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The SORE Association also appeared as a party.

The Board issued a procedural order directing the resumption of the settlement conference on March 19, 2020.

The applicants brought a motion to compel an expert witness, retained by the respondent SORE, to answer questions refused during cross-examination on his affidavit.

The underlying application sought to quash municipal instruments authorizing Notices of Intention to Designate the applicants' property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The refused questions related to statements the expert made alleging the applicants engaged in 'demolition by neglect'.

The court granted the motion, finding the questions had a semblance of relevance to the issues in the application and the credibility of the expert's evidence, and did not constitute an abuse of process.

The Conservation Review Board held a pre-hearing conference regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate four properties.

The community group SORE Association sought party status, which the objectors opposed.

The Board granted SORE party status, finding it had a genuine interest, would make a useful contribution, and its addition would not cause prejudice or delay.

The Board also ordered concurrent hearings for the four related proceedings and directed the scheduling of a pre-hearing settlement conference.

The applicant sought declarations that a regulation prohibiting abusive or insulting language in Niagara Parks infringed his freedom of expression under the Charter, after he was charged for swearing at police officers while holding a profane political sign.

The court held that the regulation was not vague or overbroad, and that given the historical and actual function of the park as a natural and tourist attraction, abusive language was likely not protected speech.

Alternatively, any infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicants' initial application was dismissed, leading to a costs endorsement.

The respondent Town sought substantial indemnity costs of $21,547.21.

The applicants argued against costs or for partial indemnity, asserting the issues were valid and counsel's time excessive.

The court, applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, determined that the respondent, as the successful party, was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Despite delays attributed to the applicants, the court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs under the "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous" threshold established in Young v. Young.

Costs were fixed at $18,112.80, all-inclusive, payable by the applicants within 30 days.

The applicants sought a permanent injunction to prevent the municipality from removing derelict vehicles and debris from their property pursuant to a property standards order.

The applicants argued that the tenant was not properly served, that the vehicles constituted a legal non-conforming use, and that a Crown Patent exempted the property from municipal regulation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the property owner was properly served under the Building Code Act, that legal non-conforming use applies to zoning rather than property standards, and that a Crown Patent does not displace valid provincial and municipal legislation.

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.

The Appellant applied for a liquor licence for a three-deck river boat, the Niagara Belle.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from area residents concerned about noise, traffic, and parking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that granting the licence would not be in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application without imposing additional conditions.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, the respondent Ministry of Natural Resources sought partial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount of $8,034.09 to be reasonable and ordered it payable forthwith.

On consent, the respondent County of Haldimand was awarded costs of $2,500.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Municipal Board regarding the revocation of a licence, arguing the Board erred in law by failing to understand that the revocation was tainted by prior allegedly unlawful actions by the Ministry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision and noting that the Board's conclusion that the appellant was not in compliance with licence conditions was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed.

The appellant municipality appealed the acquittal of the respondents on a charge of breaching a zoning by-law by storing used tires on their agricultural property.

The lower courts acquitted the respondents on the basis that the tires were intended to be used as building material for fences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the accumulation of thousands of tires over a three-month period constituted 'storage' in contravention of the by-law, regardless of the eventual intended use.

The acquittals were set aside, convictions entered, and nominal fines imposed.