Steven J. O’Melia

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Waterloo's Official Plan, zoning by-law amendments, and draft plans of subdivision.

The City withdrew its motion to geographically scope the Official Plan appeal.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties, scheduling a 20-day video hearing for October 2022 and setting out the procedural requirements, including the exchange of draft conditions and expert witness meetings.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a residential development, several individuals sought party or participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to an individual representing an unincorporated citizens' group, and participant status to others.

The Tribunal also finalized a Procedural Order and scheduled a six-day video hearing.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a large dwelling and accessory structures.

Following case management conferences, the parties reached an agreement to modify the conditions of approval, specifically regarding the septic bed design and fill placement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal, functioning as the Niagara Escarpment Hearings Office, found the agreed-upon conditions to be correct and allowed the appeals in part to implement the revised conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 32-storey mixed-use building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it exceeded the height and density limits of the North York Centre Secondary Plan.

Adjacent property owners also opposed, requesting a block assessment to ensure their future redevelopment potential.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development optimizes land and infrastructure, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal approved the development in principle, subject to minor architectural modifications to accommodate the adjacent property, and withheld its final order pending the finalization of the amending instruments and a Section 37 Agreement.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment required to sever a surplus farm dwelling from a consolidated agricultural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to a reduced severed area.

The Tribunal approved the revised amendment, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The appellants brought a motion for costs against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake following a successful appeal regarding a site plan application and the removal of a holding provision for an estate winery.

The appellants argued that the Town's conduct in processing the application and during the appeal was unreasonable and vexatious.

The Tribunal found that while the Town could have dealt with the matter more expeditiously, its actions did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motion for costs was dismissed, as was the Town's request for costs of the motion.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a large dwelling and accessory structures.

During a telephone conference call to finalize the issues list, the Hearing Officer determined that issues related to an adjacent quarry lake were not properly before the Tribunal.

The issues list was finalized, with the primary remaining issue being the location of the septic bed, and the hearing was reduced to a single day.

The applicants brought an application seeking a declaration that building permits issued for a neighbouring townhouse development did not comply with a zoning by-law restricting development to one storey.

The applicants also brought a motion to amend their application to include an appeal under the Building Code Act and to stay construction.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding that the applicants failed to appeal the permits within the statutory 20-day period and did not provide reasonable grounds for an extension.

The request for a stay of construction was also dismissed as the applicants failed to meet the test for an interlocutory injunction.

However, the court granted an order requiring the town to enforce a settlement agreement restricting the use of adjacent municipally-owned lands.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48, which redesignate lands for the residential redevelopment of a golf course, part of which is within the Greenbelt Plan boundary.

The appellants argued the amendments were premature and raised concerns regarding need, stormwater management, compatibility, and transportation.

The Tribunal found that the phased planning approach was appropriate and that the amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Region's Official Plan, and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

This was the second Case Management Conference for appeals regarding the City of Waterloo's 2012 Official Plan and related site-specific applications for zoning by-law amendments and plans of subdivision.

The Tribunal consolidated the Official Plan appeal with the site-specific appeals.

A 20-day video hearing was scheduled for October 2022, with a third Case Management Conference scheduled for November 2021 to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that resolved all outstanding issues, including concerns related to flooding and natural hazards raised by the conservation authority.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised planning instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to approve the modified instruments.

The appellant appealed the adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Perth and the Municipality of North Perth.

The parties reached a compromise settlement to revise the amendments to continue permitting a mixed-use development.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and in conformity with the County Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised amendments.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal to grant a proposed zoning by-law amendment, which was a condition precedent to a surplus farm-dwelling severance consent application.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a tentative resolution but required time to complete procedural steps, including an application to modify the conditional consent before the County Land Division Committee.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter to allow the parties to finalize their settlement discussions.

The court issued an amended case management endorsement addressing procedural issues for a judicial review application sought by the appellant.

The endorsement struck the March 3, 2017 proceedings related to setting a date for the judicial review application and vacated the April 18, 2017 return date.

The parties were directed to contact the trial coordinator to set a new hearing date before another judge to consider the procedural issues.

The court emphasized the principle of finality and the remediation order from September 30, 2016, which was determinative of the underlying appeal.

The self-represented appellant appeared before the court to set a date for a judicial review of an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a building permit revocation and zoning non-compliance.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application on the technicality that it was commenced under the wrong court file number.

The court denied the request for dismissal, ordered the court office to assign a new file number, directed the production of a video recording of a Committee of Adjustment meeting, and clarified the remediation timetable from a previous order.

The applicants sought leave to appeal their convictions for building a farm roadway in a regulated wetland without a permit from the Conservation Authority.

They argued that the Provincial Policy Statement under the Planning Act immunized them from prosecution for farming activities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed legal question had no merit, as the Provincial Policy Statement only applies to the exercise of authority affecting a planning matter and does not override the Conservation Authority's jurisdiction to regulate wetlands.

An elector applied for a declaration that a municipal mayor breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council closed-session discussion concerning potential defamation litigation related to online blog posts.

The applicant sought disqualification from office and restitution of municipal legal fees allegedly incurred for the mayor’s benefit.

The court first considered the six‑week limitation period under s. 9 of the Act and held that the applicant had sufficient knowledge of a potential breach when a newspaper article reported the litigation and municipal funding of legal costs.

Because the application was commenced well after the limitation period expired, it was statute‑barred.

In obiter, the court held that even if the limitation period had not expired, the evidence did not establish that the mayor had a pecuniary interest at the time of the council meeting or that litigation in her personal name had been decided.

The Town of Collingwood sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that dismissed an appeal respecting the Education Development Charge By-laws of two school boards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Town failed to identify any arguable error of law in the Board's decision, as the issues raised primarily involved questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that permitted the responding party to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one in a heritage conservation district.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised were factual rather than questions of law, lacked general legal importance, and that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant, a detective sergeant with 26 years of service, appealed the disciplinary penalties imposed after being found guilty of two counts of discreditable conduct for submitting false expense claims to an external law enforcement network.

The Hearing Officer had imposed a forfeiture of 20 days' leave for the first count and a six-month reduction in rank to sergeant for the second count.

On appeal, the appellant argued the penalties were excessive and violated the totality principle.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the two infractions were distinct and separated by time, justifying cumulative penalties.

The Commission concluded that the Hearing Officer properly weighed the mitigating factors and that the penalties were consistent with prior cases involving misappropriation by police officers.