Tony E. Fleming

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their minor variance application to construct a new dwelling larger than the legal non-conforming log cabin it replaced.

The property is zoned Environmental Protection and abuts a highly sensitive lake trout fishery at capacity for development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted planning evidence that the proposed expansion, without an Environmental Impact Study demonstrating no adverse impacts, is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and does not meet the test under s. 45(2) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

Citizens Against Melrose Quarry (CAMQ) sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water to C.H. Demill Holdings Inc. for quarry dewatering.

CAMQ challenged Condition 3.5 of the permit, which regulated water taking during low-water advisories, arguing it was unreasonable and could cause significant environmental harm.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while CAMQ had standing to seek leave, it failed to meet the two-part test for leave to appeal under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director acted reasonably, considered relevant policies including the ecosystem approach and cumulative effects, and that there was no evidence the permit would result in significant environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and consent to sever a 0.8-hectare parcel for residential purposes.

The key issue was whether the proposed reduction in the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setback from an adjacent livestock facility was appropriate.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Official Plan, and did not meet the limited site-specific circumstances for reducing the MDS setback under Guideline 43.

The appeals were dismissed.

Homestead Land Holdings Limited appealed the City of Kingston's failure to make a decision on site-specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit two high-rise mixed-use developments on brownfield sites in the downtown North Block.

The City and Homestead subsequently reached a settlement supporting revised proposals.

The Frontenac Heritage Foundation opposed the developments, arguing they would adversely impact nearby heritage conservation districts and character areas due to their height and visual intrusion.

The Tribunal found the revised proposals compatible with the surrounding built form, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, noting the sites were designated for major development and intensification.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of two consent applications to create two new rural lots.

Prior to the hearing, the applicants and the municipality reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposals complied with Minimum Distance Separation formulae, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted provisional consents subject to conditions.

The appellant, Steve Maynard, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his application to quash five municipal by-laws.

The application judge had found that the challenge to the by-laws, based on their alleged inconsistency with a provincial policy statement and non-conformity with an official plan, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), now the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding that it was plain and obvious that the LPAT (or its successor) had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry 2018 Comprehensive Official Plan, the Township of South Glengarry brought a motion to bring into force parts of the Official Plan redesignating two properties from 'Agricultural Resource Lands' to 'Rural District'.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the redesignation was appropriate based on soil characteristics and conformed with the intent of the Official Plan.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address the remaining appeals.

The applicant sought minor variances to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one-and-a-half storey dwelling on an undersized waterfront lot.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, which were subsequently appealed by a neighbour.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that slightly amended the variances and included conditions.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed the City's passage of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, which imposed density restrictions and ground-floor retail requirements on its properties.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to exempt the subject lands from the density restrictions, subject to a holding symbol for servicing capacity, and to delete the requirement for small inset stores within single-use retail frontages.

Relying on uncontested planning affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township's adoption of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted a food distribution warehouse on rural lands partially within a floodplain.

The appellant raised concerns regarding natural heritage, traffic safety, and the lack of an Environmental Impact Study or hydrogeological study.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development was not within or adjacent to natural heritage features requiring an EIS, and that the site's location near a highway interchange was appropriate for transport-related uses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the official plan.

The appellant appealed the Township's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a parking lot and storage compound for boats and recreational vehicles on an abutting property.

The appellant raised concerns regarding stormwater management, visual impacts, traffic, and environmental protection.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert evidence that the proposed use is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and that specific concerns regarding buffering and drainage can be appropriately addressed at the site plan control stage.

The applicants, developers in the City of Kingston, challenged the validity of the City's Impost By-law, which imposed fees for the capital costs of water and sewer infrastructure.

The applicants argued that the City was required to impose such fees under the Development Charges Act, 1997, and that the Impost By-law conflicted with that Act, was ultra vires the Municipal Act, 2001, and was discriminatory.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the legislative framework allowed the City to enact the Impost By-law under the Municipal Act, 2001, that there was no conflict with the Development Charges Act, 1997, and that the by-law was neither ultra vires nor discriminatory.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that struck 8 of 15 issues from a draft Issues List during a case management conference.

The moving parties argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that it was premature, without prejudice to the moving parties raising the issues at an appropriate time in the future.

A case management endorsement scheduling a motion for leave to appeal from a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision.

The court set the hearing date for October 26, 2020, by Zoom videoconference, and established deadlines for the service and filing of motion materials.

The applicants and respondent sought a last-minute consent adjournment of a full-day application hearing scheduled for February 21, 2020, citing ongoing settlement discussions that required City Council approval.

The court expressed frustration with the late notice, noting it resulted in wasted judicial and courtroom resources.

The court adjourned the matter to be spoken to at a future motions court, recommending that any new hearing date be made peremptory to both sides.

Following an application regarding the interpretation of a municipal zoning by-law and legal non-conforming use, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The applicant, a public interest litigant, had partial success but the main issue was decided in favour of the respondents.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $40,000 to the respondent Picton Terminals.

The court declined to award costs to the respondent County, finding that its failure to recognize the trans-shipment use in its 2006 zoning by-law generated the uncertainty that led to the application, and recognizing the applicant as a public interest litigant.

The applicants sought judicial review of a municipal bylaw that exempted agricultural vehicles from heavy vehicle restrictions on a local ferry.

The applicants argued the municipal council improperly fettered its discretion and acted under a misapprehension of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the council had the jurisdiction to ease the restrictions it previously imposed, did not fetter its discretion, and the bylaw was not void for vagueness.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of a Notice of Suspension of conditions for a waste disposal site, the Tribunal addressed requests for status and scheduled a preliminary motion.

The Tribunal granted party status to Citizens Against the ED19 Dump for the entire proceeding, including the preliminary motion, finding that the narrow costs rules under the Environmental Protection Act addressed the appellant's concerns about potential costs awards.

Several other individuals and organizations were granted participant or presenter status on consent.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent, Mayor of Belleville, breached the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by participating in a council debate and voting on a highway improvement project in which he had a pecuniary interest.

The court found that the respondent did breach the Act by voting on the project, which involved the acquisition of property owned by a company in which he held shares.

However, the court applied the saving provision under section 10(2) of the Act, finding that the contravention was committed through an honest error in judgment, and therefore declined to remove the respondent from office.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) to the permit holder for dewatering a limestone quarry.

The appellant argued the supporting documentation was inadequate, the terms did not safeguard public interests, and the permit holder had a history of non-compliance.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while recent structural geology investigations and monitoring data adequately addressed hydrogeological uncertainties, the PTTW required amendments.

The Tribunal ordered reductions in the permitted water taking volume, enhanced groundwater monitoring, the implementation of water conservation measures, and the addition of specific triggers and compliance mechanisms to the contingency plan.