Ugo Popadic

The Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians appealed the Minister's approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 45) for lands in Kitchener.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine the validity of the appeal because the Six Nations had not made oral or written submissions to City Council prior to the OPA's adoption, as required by s. 17(36) of the Planning Act.

The Six Nations argued that the Minister failed to discharge the constitutional duty to consult and that the Tribunal should interpret the appeal provisions liberally.

The Tribunal found that the statutory requirement under s. 17(36) is clear and non-discretionary.

Because the Six Nations did not make the required submissions to Council, they lacked standing to appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 23, which redesignated prime agricultural lands to Major Open Space, permitting non-agricultural uses.

The parties reached a settlement to revert approximately 1,350 hectares back to the Agricultural Resource Lands designation and remove associated policy wording.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the settlement modifications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, conform with the County Official Plan, and represent good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended OPA 23.

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County of Perth's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 193, which sought to allow the creation of five non-farm residential lots in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that the amendment was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as the existing dwellings were not rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused to approve the amendment.

The County of Simcoe adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (OPA 5) to clarify solid waste management policies.

The appellants appealed the adoption.

The County and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing challenged the appellants' statutory standing, arguing they did not make the required oral or written submissions prior to adoption.

The Tribunal directed the County to bring a written motion to determine the threshold issue of standing and set a schedule for filings.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

The appellants appealed the County's Official Plan Amendment 2 (OPA 2) and the Township's failure to make a decision on related official plan and zoning by-law amendments, which would permit an Environmental Resource Recovery Centre (ERRC) in a significant woodland.

The appellants argued the facility would have negative impacts on the natural heritage system and did not qualify for exemptions under the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal found that the proposed facility would not cause negative impacts to the significant woodlands or wildlife habitat, and that the required off-site afforestation and reforestation provided appropriate compensation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals against OPA 2 and approved the related amendments in part, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

Nicholyn Farms Inc. brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of appeals regarding County of Simcoe Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (COPA 2) and to consolidate it with the hearing for appeals of County Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (COPA 5).

The County of Simcoe and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing opposed the motion, arguing that COPA 5 was not properly appealed and that an adjournment would cause significant prejudice and delay to the County's waste management objectives.

The Tribunal found that an adjournment would prejudice the County and the Ministry, and that the moving party failed to justify the delay.

The motion was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal resolved a dispute between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and the applicants regarding the wording of the Issues List for an upcoming hearing.

MMAH sought to include wording that definitively stated the subject lands were within a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal agreed with the applicants that this was a contested material fact that MMAH must prove through evidence at the hearing, and amended the issues to remove the definitive statement.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton advised that it is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review that may result in an urban boundary expansion, potentially resolving many appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 4, 2021, to allow time for the City to provide direction on the boundary expansion and for the parties to prepare an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for the hearing of appeals concerning the Township of Springwater's proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2 and Zoning By-law Amendment, which would permit a waste management facility in the Freele County Forest.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, which will be conducted by videoconference in two parts, and establishes the requirements for the parties before the hearing, including the exchange of witness lists, expert witness meetings, and the filing of participant statements.

The appellants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted the redevelopment of lands for an open pit gold mine operation.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included minor amendments to the Zoning By-law to adjust the boundary of the Mining Zone and its associated buffer.

Based on uncontested expert planning and surveying evidence, the Tribunal found the amended by-law consistent with provincial policy and good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part to implement the settlement and dismissed the official plan appeal on consent.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (now LPAT) which adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding Official Plan Amendment 258 (OPA 258) until the City enacted a Development Permit System (DPS) by-law.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to effectively order the passage of a by-law and denied the City its statutory right to a hearing under the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board did not order the passage of a by-law but reasonably exercised its procedural discretion to adjourn the hearing to ensure it had the necessary evidence to properly assess the planning merits of OPA 258.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a default hearing to enforce child and spousal support arrears of over $292,000 against the respondent payor.

The payor argued he lacked the ability to pay and sought to encumber a property held in his deceased parents' estate, of which he was the sole executor and beneficiary.

The court found the payor failed to provide full and frank disclosure, thereby failing to rebut the statutory presumption of ability to pay under s. 41(9) of the FRSAEA.

The court ordered the arrears secured against the property, permitted the payor to list it for sale, and ordered ongoing monthly payments of $1,250 under threat of incarceration.