Stephen Nadler

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding an appeal by 2541005 Ontario Limited against the Township of Oro-Medonte's Zoning By-law No. 2020-046, which restricts the growing of cannabis and industrial hemp crops in agricultural zones.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order setting the schedule and rules for an 8-day video hearing commencing on July 15, 2024.

The Tribunal considered a motion to settle a site-specific appeal of a municipal-wide zoning by-law regulating cannabis production and processing facilities.

The Tribunal found that it could approve the site-specific settlement prior to hearing the remaining municipal-wide appeal because the settlement instrument could stand alone and would not pre-determine the outcome of the broader appeal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the site-specific amendment represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to applicable official plans by balancing agricultural promotion with the protection of sensitive land uses.

The settlement was approved and the remaining municipal-wide appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.

Carmel Pharms brought a motion to separate its appeal of a zoning by-law amendment from a consolidated hearing with two other appellants, following a settlement with the Township of Oro-Medonte.

The Tribunal initially denied the motion due to concerns about fair adjudication for the remaining appellants.

After the parties collaborated to revise the draft order, the Tribunal rescinded its initial decision, granted the motion to separate the appeal, and approved the site-specific zoning by-law amendment for Carmel Pharms based on uncontested expert planning evidence.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decision that allowed the insured to proceed with her claim for non-earner benefits despite missing the two-year limitation period to add the issue to arbitration.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that while the insured validly added the non-earner benefits issue to mediation within the two-year period, she failed to add the issue to her application for arbitration before the limitation period expired.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Cornie, the limitation period continued to run despite the lack of a mediator's report, precluding the claim from proceeding to arbitration.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits based on an independent chiropractic examination.

The insurer argued that the applicant failed to commence a mediation proceeding within the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had requested to add the issue to an existing mediation via letter before the limitation period expired, which was common practice, but did not file a formal Application for Mediation until after the deadline.

The Arbitrator applied the Dispute Resolution Practice Code's rules on broad interpretation and defects in form, finding that the letter validly commenced the mediation proceeding.

The applicant was not barred from proceeding with her claim.