Spencer Putnam

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Skycroft Campground (2011) Ltd. against the Township of South Frontenac's refusal of applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to permit additional campsites.

The Tribunal granted party status to Protect Opinicon Inc. and Queen's University, directed the parties to submit an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 15-day merit hearing for January 2025.

The expropriating authority proposed to expropriate a portion of the property owner's land to expand a multi-use public trail along a former railbed.

The property owner requested a Hearing of Necessity, objecting to the proposed width of the expropriation at the northern end of the property, which ranged from 20 to 40 metres.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed taking was 'sound' from a land use planning perspective to avoid orphaned parcels, it was neither 'reasonably necessary' nor 'fair'.

The trail only required a width of 4 to 5 metres, and taking the entire width of the northern portion would have a materially adverse impact on the property owner's use and enjoyment of the lands.

The Tribunal concluded the expropriation as proposed did not meet the statutory test under section 7(5) of the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the failure of the approval authority to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte were granted party status due to an ongoing land claim encompassing the subject property.

The Tribunal determined it was premature to schedule a merit hearing until a motion regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the land claim is heard and decided.

The appellant brought a motion for discovery seeking hydrogeological records, site plans, and a site visit related to a proposed quarry expansion.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, issuing a consent order requiring the applicant to provide specific documents and records by a set date, with each party bearing its own costs.

The Municipality of North Grenville expropriated a 0.57-acre drainage easement from the claimants' property and filed a Notice of Arbitration to determine the compensation payable.

The claimants did not participate in the proceedings.

Relying on the uncontested expert appraisal evidence called by the municipality, the Tribunal determined the market value of the expropriated easement to be $3,200, representing 25% of the fee simple value, with no injurious affection to the remaining lands.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to pay the compensation plus 6% statutory interest into court.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Township.

The parties could not agree on an Issues List.

The Tribunal found that many of the issues proposed by the appellants were outside its jurisdiction, such as alleged irregularities in the passage of the by-law and contractual liability.

The Tribunal adopted the five issues proposed by the Township and scheduled a two-day merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to approve the establishment of a Muslim cemetery on 43.8 acres of prime agricultural land.

The applicant argued the cemetery was a permitted use under the zoning by-law and served a cultural need.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that establishing the cemetery was not in the public interest.

The Tribunal prioritized the provincial interest in protecting prime agricultural lands over the cultural facility provision, noting the applicant failed to provide a needs analysis or evaluate alternative locations outside prime agricultural areas as required by the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appellants appealed the Township's decision to amend its Comprehensive Zoning By-law regarding the definition of an 'improved street'.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties could not agree on an Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference, ordered the Township to provide further notice to impacted landowners, and granted participant status to several individuals.

The appellant appealed the Municipality's Shoreline Preservation By-law, which introduced a 30-metre setback and natural vegetative buffer requirement around waterbodies to conform with the updated County Official Plan.

The appellant argued the by-law was overly prescriptive and unreasonably restricted land use.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County Official Plan, which explicitly requires a 30-metre setback and vegetative buffer to protect water quality and ecological functions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part only to add a definition of 'vegetative buffer' and a provision permitting minor maintenance and pruning, but otherwise dismissed the appeal, concluding the by-law represented good planning and appropriately balanced public environmental interests with private property rights.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an amendment to the County of Hastings Official Plan, which would permit the establishment of a quarry.

The parties were unable to reach a resolution.

The applicant and municipality requested a hearing in mid-April 2024, while the appellant requested a delay until late 2024 to complete necessary studies.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for April 2024, noting that the appellant had sufficient time since filing the appeal to prepare their case.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment to permit a quarry.

The parties advised they intend to call expert witnesses and are completing studies.

The Tribunal determined a full Procedural Order was not required but directed the parties to confer on document exchange and hearing length.

A second CMC was scheduled.

The County of Frontenac sought to expropriate 2.04 acres of the owners' lands, which included a former railway bed, to complete a segment of the Frontenac K&P Trail.

The owners contested the width of the taking, arguing it should be narrower.

Following a Hearing of Necessity, the Ontario Land Tribunal found that the 21-metre width was reasonable given the scope of multi-seasonal activities and maintenance requirements.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the County's objectives.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a 35-unit townhouse development.

The appellant raised concerns regarding density, parking, and exceptions to zoning standards.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the by-law is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Ummati Cemetery against the Township of Cramahe's refusal to permit the establishment of a cemetery.

The Tribunal approved the agreed-upon Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a two-day video hearing for September 2023.

Claude Laporte appealed his conviction for failing to comply with an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act.

The appeal raised four grounds: misapprehension of evidence regarding his testimony, incorrect interpretation of "build" and "owner" under the Building Code Act, improper judicial interference by raising the principle of collateral attack, and an erroneous consideration of the defence of officially induced error.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, confirming the applicability of the collateral attack principle to administrative orders, and rejecting the officially induced error defence.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit an increased horizontal surface area for a waterfront deck within the 30-metre water setback.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised, reduced variance request.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance meets the four tests under the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the revised variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The County of Frontenac sought to expropriate 1.87 acres of the owner's land, comprising a former railbed, to develop a multi-use public trail.

The owner requested a hearing of necessity, challenging the width of the proposed taking.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the 21-metre width was reasonable and necessary to accommodate the various trail activities, clearance, and maintenance requirements outlined in the County's Trails Master Plan.

The Tribunal reported that the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by the appellant against the municipality regarding a shoreline preservation zoning by-law.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the summary of dates, parties and participants, issues list, and the order of evidence.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and an application for an aggregate extraction Class 'A' license for an existing quarry.

The Tribunal granted party status to a former participant, approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a ten-day hearing.

The appellants appealed the refusal of the Township's Committee of Adjustment to grant a minor variance to reduce the exterior side yard setback from 7.5 m to 4.2 m for a new single detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence presented by the Township, the Tribunal found that the revised variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.