Scott G. Seabrooke

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City's refusal of a Draft Plan of Condominium to convert a 128-unit rental townhouse project to condominium ownership.

Participant status was granted to a tenant opposing the conversion.

The parties were directed to continue discussions to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

A second CMC was scheduled to set hearing dates and address potential pre-hearing motions.

The applicant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a high-density mixed-use development on a former industrial site.

The delay was due to pending floodplain modelling by the conservation authority.

Prior to the hearing, the conservation authority confirmed the site could be safely developed, leading the parties to reach a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and allowed the appeal to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant concerning the City of Peterborough's non-decision on a site-specific zoning by-law amendment application.

The parties reported progress on outstanding issues, including safe access to the site.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing and issued procedural directions for the submission of an issues list, witness lists, and a joint book of documents.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding an appeal by MacPherson Realty (Peterborough) Ltd. and others against the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

No requests for party or participant status were received.

The parties requested more time for settlement discussions and to finalize an Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for December 12, 2022, and provided directions for submitting materials if a settlement is reached or for setting a hearing date if not.

The applicants sought an order granting them possessory title to a half-acre strip of land adjacent to their property, which was registered to the deceased respondent.

The applicants had mistakenly believed the strip was part of their property since 1978 and had continuously posted 'no trespassing' signs.

The court found that the applicants had established open, notorious, continuous, and exclusive possession for over 10 years prior to the land's conversion to the Land Titles system in 2000.

The court applied the mutual mistake exception to the inconsistent use requirement and granted the application, vesting title in the applicants.

The plaintiffs, owners of a 50-acre parcel and an adjacent 200-acre parcel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief regarding a right-of-way over the defendant's farm.

The plaintiffs intended to develop the property and sought declarations permitting them to alter the right-of-way for year-round vehicular access, remove gates, and access the 200-acre parcel.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the proposed development lacked municipal approval, making the requested declarations hypothetical.

The court also held that the plaintiffs could not use the right-of-way to access the 200-acre parcel, which was not the dominant tenement.

The applicant sought a hearing before the Building Code Commission regarding a dispute with the Chief Building Official over a partially constructed residential building.

The applicant had begun construction without a permit, leading to a stop work order and a Superior Court order requiring him to obtain a permit or demolish the building.

The Commission found that the applicant qualified as an 'applicant for a permit' under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act.

However, because both parties agreed that the technical provisions of the Building Code applied and the applicant was willing to comply, there was no actual dispute concerning the sufficiency of compliance with the technical requirements.

Consequently, the Commission ruled it lacked jurisdiction to make a determination and noted that disputes regarding the issuance of a permit must be appealed to the Superior Court.

The Appellants appealed Tarion's decision to deny their new home warranty claim.

The Appellants failed to request a conciliation inspection within the 30-day period ending on the 150th day after filing their claim forms, as required by O. Reg. 892/90.

The Tribunal found that the Appellants' claim was deemed withdrawn due to this failure and that there were no extraordinary circumstances to justify extending the time limits.

The appeal was dismissed.