Thomas Richardson

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in the amount of $5,000, with entitlement to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals under s. 48(1) and s. 54(1) of the Drainage Act regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements to the drain were being undertaken pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act, which does not require a petition from landowners.

The Tribunal concluded that the s. 48(1) appeal did not meet the statutory criteria and dismissed both appeals without a hearing, granting the appellants participant status instead.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on April 7, 2025.

The hearing concerns appeals related to the City of Niagara Falls' Employment Lands Strategy, a residential plan of subdivision, and associated official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The applicant appealed the City of Port Colborne's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that included additional visual screening and privacy measures.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies, conforming to local official plans, and representing good planning by encouraging intensification and housing diversity.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of 69 stacked townhouse units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, and the City supported the applications.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies, representing good land use planning and appropriate residential intensification.

The appeal was allowed and the amendments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Phelps Homes Ltd. and JTG Holdings Ltd. against the Township of West Lincoln's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 63.

The Tribunal granted party status to several landowners and participant status to a local citizens group member.

The parties agreed to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a 19-day merit hearing to commence in June 2024, along with a second Case Management Conference in February 2024.

The appellant appealed the Town of Fort Erie Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application for a property.

The application sought variances for rear yard setback, flood elevation setback, and accessory structure height to permit the expansion of a detached dwelling and construction of an accessory building.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the Town reached a settlement, but a neighbouring property owners' association opposed it, requesting an additional condition to restrict the dwelling's use.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and were consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal rejected the association's proposed condition, finding it outside the intent of the Zoning By-law, and allowed the appeal subject only to the condition agreed upon by the appellant and the Town.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit commercial cooking equipment within an existing Estate Winery.

The Tribunal granted party status to abutting neighbours but denied it to others who did not raise legitimate land use planning issues.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the applicant, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, Growth Plan, and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law was amended.

A third and final Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law, and plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal confirmed that the hearing will proceed by video, as in-person hearings cannot be accommodated.

The applicant withdrew a request to introduce expert evidence-in-chief exclusively through written statements, resolving the final procedural issue.

The 15-day video hearing will proceed as scheduled.

A third Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they are continuing efforts to reach a resolution and have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits and directed that mediation be scheduled as early as possible before the witness statement deadline.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment permitting a gas bar use.

The appellant, an adjacent property owner, appealed based on concerns regarding the adequacy of a private sanitary sewer system.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order with amendments and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities against a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Town of Fort Erie.

The appeal concerns servicing and sewage disposal facility requirements.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicant, 2639723 Ontario Inc., without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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 applicants filed a complaint regarding noise disturbances from a vineyard operation owned by the respondents.

After an unsuccessful mediation, a hearing commenced before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties advised the Board that they had reached a settlement.

The Board declined to approve the specific details of the settlement but ordered the application withdrawn on consent of the parties.

The appellants appealed an engineer's report and a Court of Revision decision regarding the relocation of a municipal drain across their fruit farm.

They argued the proposed open ditch would sever their property, destroy mature fruit trees, and that they were inadequately compensated and unfairly assessed.

The Tribunal ordered the engineer to revise the report to enclose the portion of the drain crossing the appellants' property, to revisit the allowances to account for actual land use and tree damage, and to cap the benefit assessment to the appellants at 15% of the cost of the abutting works.

The respondents sought to develop land subdivided via testamentary devise, a method that bypassed Planning Act controls.

When they applied for building permits, the appellant Town delayed processing and passed an interim control by-law, followed by a zoning amendment increasing minimum lot sizes, effectively halting the development.

The trial judge found the Town acted in bad faith, quashed the zoning amendment, and ordered the issuance of building permits and damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings of bad faith and the order for building permits, finding no palpable and overriding error, but allowed the appeal in part to adjust the interest rate on damages and the scale of costs.

The appellant municipality appealed the acquittal of the respondents on a charge of breaching a zoning by-law by storing used tires on their agricultural property.

The lower courts acquitted the respondents on the basis that the tires were intended to be used as building material for fences.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the accumulation of thousands of tires over a three-month period constituted 'storage' in contravention of the by-law, regardless of the eventual intended use.

The acquittals were set aside, convictions entered, and nominal fines imposed.