11 total
Successful respondents on appeal awarded total costs of $55,000 on a partial indemnity scale.
Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs.
The City sought $27,699.06 and the developer sought $43,176.94, while the appellant argued costs should be fixed at $25,000.00 total.
The Divisional Court noted the appellant's own bill of costs was over $59,000, indicating its reasonable expectations.
The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 to the City and $30,000.00 to the developer, inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Appeal dismissed; chemical manufacturer not a 'specified person' under Planning Act to challenge nearby residential development.
The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.
Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.
The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.
The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.
Hearing cancelled to allow parties to assess impact of prior decision limiting third-party appeal rights.
The City of Niagara Falls requested an adjournment of an upcoming hearing regarding 2023 planning instruments, arguing the proceeding may become moot due to a prior Tribunal decision that precluded the appellant's appeal of superseding 2025 planning instruments under Bill 185.
The appellant opposed the adjournment.
The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled hearing to allow the appellant time to consider whether to seek a review or appeal of the prior decision, and to avoid potentially unnecessary proceedings.
The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update within 60 days.
Planning appeals precluded because appellant did not qualify as a 'specified person' under the amended Planning Act.
The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion for directions to determine whether Cytec Canada Inc. had standing to appeal three planning instruments under the Planning Act.
Following amendments by the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, appeals are restricted to 'specified persons'.
Cytec argued it qualified as an environmental compliance approval (ECA) holder.
The Tribunal found that the plain language of subsection 1(1)(l) of the Planning Act requires the ECA activity to be undertaken on lands within 300 metres of the planning area.
Because Cytec's ECA applied to lands further away, and not to its 'Beechwood Lands' within the 300-metre radius, it did not meet the definition.
The Tribunal ordered that Cytec's appeals were precluded.
Appeals allowed and planning amendments approved to permit a 114-unit stacked townhouse development following a settlement.
The applicant appealed the City of Port Colborne's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 114-unit stacked townhouse development.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.
Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to applicable growth plans, and represented good planning.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments.
Tribunal maintained scheduled hearing dates as parties work towards resolving official plan and zoning appeals.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.
The applications seek to permit a stacked townhouse development.
The parties advised that they have made progress in scoping the issues and are working towards a possible resolution.
The Tribunal maintained the scheduled hearing dates for either a hearing on the merits or a settlement presentation.
Tribunal schedules second CMC and merit hearing for appeals regarding a proposed stacked townhouse development.
The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and approve a zoning by-law amendment to permit a stacked townhouse development.
At the first Case Management Conference, the parties agreed on procedural matters and requested the scheduling of a second CMC and a merit hearing.
The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for May 8, 2024, and a five-day merit hearing commencing August 26, 2024, and approved the draft Procedural Order.
Minor variances for reduced agricultural setbacks authorized in part to balance residential development with farm protection.
The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application seeking to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from nearby livestock facilities to permit the construction of a residential dwelling.
Prior to the hearing, the municipality revised its position to support a partial reduction in the setbacks, while the appellant sought further reductions to maximize the buildable area.
The Tribunal authorized the municipality's proposed variances, finding they represented a balanced approach that provided a reasonable development opportunity while protecting agricultural resources and minimizing impacts on the adjacent farm.
The appellant's requested further reductions were denied as they failed to have appropriate regard for the MDS Guidelines and the public interest.
Tribunal disqualifies expert witness for advocacy bias and approves settlement for residential subdivision development.
The appellant appealed the Town's approval of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a residential development.
During the hearing, the Tribunal made several procedural rulings, notably excluding the appellant's ecological expert witness from giving opinion evidence because her self-described role as an advocate demonstrated an inability to provide fair, objective, and non-partisan testimony.
The Tribunal also struck hearsay reports from a non-testifying expert and excluded late-filed documents.
Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement modifying the development proposal to increase environmental protection areas and adjust the residential mix.
The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.
Township lacks standing under Rule 38.11 to set aside a natural severance consent order.
The Township of West Lincoln brought a motion under Rule 38.11 to set aside a consent order declaring a watercourse on the applicants' property to be a navigable waterway, which effectively created a natural severance.
The Township argued it was an affected person because the order bypassed its planning authority over lot creation and impacted a demolition agreement.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Township's statutory planning authority and contractual agreements did not constitute a proprietary or economic interest required to give it standing as an affected person under Rule 38.11.
Appeal allowed; compliance audit committee's decision to refuse an audit of a candidate's campaign finances restored as reasonable.
The appellant, a municipal election candidate, appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice directing a compliance audit of her campaign finances.
The applicant elector had alleged the candidate undervalued her campaign office rent, thereby exceeding expense limits.
The compliance audit committee had initially refused the audit, finding no reasonable probability of a breach.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the OCJ judge erred in his application of the reasonableness standard of review by substituting his own interpretation of the valuation requirements under the Municipal Elections Act.
The committee's decision to accept the candidate's explanation and refuse the audit was reasonable and was restored.
