Sara Premi

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Solmar (Niagara 2) Inc. against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's failure to make decisions on planning applications for a residential subdivision on the Rand Estate.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Niagara Parks Commission and abutting property owners on consent.

The Tribunal deferred a request to consolidate the planning appeals with newly filed heritage appeals until the latter are properly before the Tribunal.

Finally, the Tribunal denied a request by Save Our Rand Estate to hold the eight-week merit hearing in person, finding that a video hearing offers the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

The applicant appealed a condition of approval for a draft plan of subdivision imposed by the municipality.

The parties reached a settlement involving revisions to the proposed conditions and a minor change to the draft plan.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised draft plan and conditions represented good planning, were consistent with provincial policies, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised draft plan subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances for the construction of a new 2.5 storey detached dwelling on a corner lot.

The variances included increased building height, increased floor area ratio, an additional half storey, and reduced setbacks.

The Tribunal found that the variances were driven by Conservation Halton's requirement to exclude a basement due to the property's location in a flood plain.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances satisfied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 172-unit residential subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Save Our Rand Estate Inc. and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, and participant status to several community groups and individuals on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order, and an eight-week hearing was set for spring 2024.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent to sever lands owned by a railway company to facilitate a sale to the applicant for future redevelopment.

During the hearing, it was discovered that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) had not received notice, leading to an adjournment and HDI being added as a party on consent.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was dismissed and the provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

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 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 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.