Scott Snider

The appellants appealed the City of Brampton's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a 360-unit residential subdivision on a 19.99-hectare infill site.

The appellants, representing residents of surrounding upscale executive housing neighborhoods, argued the proposed inclusion of townhouses and smaller lots was incompatible with the area's character and would cause traffic congestion.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the expert planning, urban design, and traffic evidence of the City and the developer.

The Tribunal found that the proposal represented a modernized form of executive housing that complied with provincial intensification policies while remaining compatible with the existing communities.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Burlington's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-storey residential apartment building.

The Tribunal reviewed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and directed the parties to collaborate on refining the Issues List.

A ten-day hearing was scheduled to commence on November 29, 2021.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the new Official Plan for the City of Burlington, as modified and approved by the Regional Municipality of Halton.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several requestors and set deadlines for the submission of issues lists and a draft Procedural Order.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled to address overlapping appeals with another Official Plan Amendment.

The applicant appealed the Town of Orangeville's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement, and the Official Plan Amendment appeal was withdrawn.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, finding they are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to applicable plans, and represent good planning in the public interest.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding the applicable legislative and policy framework for a subdivision development proposal.

The LPAT had determined that the current policy regime applied, relying on the retroactive application of s. 22.1 of the Planning Act to establish the request date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the LPAT's determination involved questions of mixed fact and law, and that the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the court's attention.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the Tribunal erred by requiring a condition in its grant of a Public Safety Maintenance Easement that permitted physical encumbrances or encroachments authorized by an approval authority.

The Town of Grimsby appealed a decision declaring that a private works yard was a permitted use on the respondent's property, which was zoned as a 'Utility Zone'.

The Town argued the use must be related to a public or quasi-public utility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied the modern principles of statutory interpretation.

The zoning by-law unambiguously defined 'Works Yard' as a permitted use without restricting it to public or utility purposes, and the by-law's plain language governed.

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 Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule for a hearing regarding an objection by the applicant to the respondent's Notice of Intention to Designate a property.

The order established dates for the hearing, site visit, and the exchange of expert witness disclosure documents and agreed statements of fact.

The City of Mississauga issued a Notice of Intention to Designate the entirety of a 2.15-acre property, which included a previously designated 19th-century dwelling and newly included natural features such as a watercourse and treed valley lands.

The property owners objected, arguing that the natural features lacked cultural heritage value.

The Conservation Review Board held a hearing and concluded that the property no longer retained sufficient farm-related features to be considered a representative example of a 19th-century farmstead.

The Board recommended that the City not proceed with designating the entire property and instead maintain the existing designation protecting the historic dwelling.

The Conservation Review Board issued an amending order on consent of the parties to change the date for the disclosure of certain documents held by the City of Mississauga.

The disclosure date was extended from June 26, 2015, to July 2, 2015, in the context of a proceeding regarding a Notice of Intention to Designate the property known as Hammond House under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owners requested advance disclosure of certain documents held by the City of Mississauga prior to a hearing regarding a Notice of Intention to Designate their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Conservation Review Board granted the owners personal access to the documents, finding they had the potential to provide necessary evidence for the hearing.

The Board dismissed the owners' request for costs, finding the City did not act unreasonably or in bad faith.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board approving a subdivision plan, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive notice of the hearing.

The moving party held an easement over land near the proposed subdivision but was not on the municipal tax roll.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board followed its standard notice procedures and was not required to notify an easement holder it could not have known about.

The court also found no error in the Board Chair's refusal to review and re-open the decision.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that approved a zoning by-law amendment permitting a 12-storey condominium development on a dynamic beach.

The moving party argued the development site fell within the Dynamic Beach Hazard, where development is prohibited.

The OMB accepted expert engineering evidence from the respondents that proposed shoreline protection works would adequately protect the site and mark the landward limit of the hazard.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's preference for one expert's opinion over others was a finding of fact, not an error of law, and therefore did not meet the test for leave to appeal.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which denied their motion to dismiss the respondent's appeal without a hearing.

The moving parties argued that the OMB had improperly made final determinations on their defences of res judicata and laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's decision was interlocutory and merely determined that the issues were worthy of a full hearing, despite the OMB's reasons going further than necessary.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision allowing a subdivision application to proceed to a hearing.

The central issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction under the Planning Act despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act requiring a development permit before any development decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to address the mandatory language of the amended legislation.

The Court further held that the respondent did not have a vested right to a hearing before the Board.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to the Divisional Court.

The OMB had dismissed a joint motion to dismiss a draft plan of subdivision without a hearing, finding it had jurisdiction despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB's decision because it failed to apply principles of statutory interpretation regarding vested rights and jurisdiction.

The court also found the issue of the OMB's jurisdiction in light of collateral statutory amendments to be of sufficient public importance.

The appellant appealed decisions of the marketing board rejecting its proposal to market a limited number of market weight hogs (up to 5% of its total sales of 'off sort' hogs).

The appellant argued the exemption would allow it to provide better service to producers without harming the marketing board's market power.

The marketing board argued that allowing competitors in its core market would erode its single desk selling authority and market power.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the marketing board's market power would be diminished by allowing competitors in the market weight hog category, and that preserving the single desk selling function was in the best interests of Ontario pork producers.

Following the disposition of several appeals, the court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful municipal parties.

The court applied the criteria under Rule 57.01, considering the complexity of the proceedings and the amounts at stake.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to the City of Mississauga, the City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, and Peel Region, with some reductions made to the amounts claimed to ensure they were fair and reasonable.

Zantingh Direct Inc. brought a motion for early disclosure of expert reports, witness statements, and documents from the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board in an ongoing appeal regarding 'off-sort' or 'lightweight' hogs.

The moving party argued that the responding party's lack of timely disclosure prejudiced its ability to prepare for the hearing.

The responding party argued it was not obligated to provide reasons for policy decisions but agreed to a schedule to expedite the proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the motion, ordering the exchange of documentary evidence, expert reports, and witness statements at least 30 days prior to the continuation of the hearing, with reply materials due 7 days prior.