Yasmeen Peer

The Niagara Escarpment Commission brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the appellants regarding the refusal of a development permit for agricultural uses, including a vineyard and storage structures.

The Commission argued the appeal lacked planning justification and merit because the Hearing Officer lacked jurisdiction to declare whether the uses were exempt existing uses.

The Hearing Officer denied the motion, finding that determining whether the Commission's decision was correct inherently involves considering whether the proposed uses are exempt, which falls within the statutory mandate and is in the public interest.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for lot coverage and front yard setback to permit a residential addition.

The parties reached a settlement after the applicant clarified that the increased lot coverage was due to external insulation required for Passive House Design.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the design supported Official Plan policies on energy conservation.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 560 (OPA 560), which established the new Sheppard Willowdale Secondary Plan.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested land use planning evidence of the City's planner, the Tribunal found that the proposed modifications to OPA 560 were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the modified OPA 560.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for a property.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement and requested an expedited settlement hearing.

At a prehearing conference, the Toronto Local Appeal Body granted the request on consent, cancelled the original hearing date, and scheduled an expedited settlement hearing with revised filing deadlines.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple landowners against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 560, which amends the eastern segment of the Sheppard Willowdale Commercial Area Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal approved an updated Procedural Order and Issues List, noting that the City and one appellant, SheppBonn Ltd., were still finalizing their specific issues.

The Tribunal set deadlines for the parties to resolve the outstanding issues and scheduled the hearing.

The moving parties, operators of a dog sledding business, sought a stay of an Animal Care Review Board decision requiring them to pay over $500,000 for the costs of care of over 100 sled dogs removed by animal welfare authorities.

The stay was sought pending the determination of two related applications for judicial review challenging the underlying compliance and removal orders.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm due to the potential forfeiture and euthanization of the specially trained dogs, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay to prevent the judicial reviews from becoming moot.

The court granted the stay on terms, including a requirement for future submissions on financial security for ongoing care costs.

The appellants appealed a Statement of Account issued by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector for over $1.1 million relating to the removal and care of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business.

The Animal Care Review Board found that the respondent bears the initial evidentiary burden to prove the charges reflect actual and reasonable costs for necessaries.

The Board varied the transportation and veterinary costs to $Nil, finding that transportation for removal is not a necessary, the care during transport fell below prescribed standards, and the respondent failed to prove the veterinary costs did not arise from its own care.

The boarding costs were reduced to $505,760 based on a reasonable daily rate of $20 per dog, resulting in a total varied Statement of Account of $505,760.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Removal issued by Animal Welfare Services (AWS) under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act, which resulted in the removal of several exotic and domestic animals from his zoo.

AWS inspectors and a veterinarian found the animals were kept in a barn with inadequate ventilation, high ammonia levels, and poor sanitary conditions.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that the animals were in distress as defined by the Act and that the Notice of Removal was properly issued based on a veterinarian's written advice that removal was necessary to alleviate their distress.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal council resolution directing staff to proceed with the development of an arena/event centre.

The applicant alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith, arguing that a staff update report failed to include requested information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of procedural unfairness, bad faith, or arbitrary conduct by the council.

The court also noted that while an alternative statutory remedy existed under the Municipal Act, it exercised its discretion to hear the judicial review to avoid further delay in the long-standing planning process.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a 27-day hearing to commence in April 2023.

The parties were directed to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order, and participants with common concerns were directed to submit joint statements to avoid duplication.

In an appeal of a $1.1 million Statement of Account related to the removal of over 200 dogs, the parties brought several preliminary motions.

The Board granted the Respondent's motion to call more than three expert witnesses, finding that the treating veterinarians were 'participant experts' exempt from strict expert report rules.

The Board also granted the Appellants' motions for further disclosure regarding the removal and care of the dogs, and permitted the Appellants' veterinarian to inspect the remaining living dogs subject to specific conditions.

The appellant appealed two zoning by-law amendments passed by the City of Ottawa to regulate short-term rentals (STRs).

The appellant argued that 'dedicated' STRs (without a principal residence requirement) should be allowed in mixed-use zones that permit both hotels and dwellings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that dedicated STRs are commercial uses that negatively affect housing supply and affordability, and are incompatible with residential functions even in mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal also found that the by-laws do not unlawfully restrict legal non-conforming rights and declined to recognize specific properties as legal non-conforming due to insufficient evidence.

A request by the City to extend the temporary use period of the by-law was also denied.

The appellants appealed the removal of over 200 dogs from their dog sledding business properties by Animal Welfare Services.

The dogs were removed following non-compliance with previous orders regarding tether lengths and dog house conditions.

The Board found that while some puppies were not in distress and must be returned immediately, the majority of the dogs were in distress due to inadequate tether lengths, lack of insulation, and poor state of repair of their shelters.

The Board ordered the return of the remaining dogs subject to the appellants achieving compliance with specific standards of care, including three-metre tethers and insulated dog houses.

The appellants run a dog sledding business from which over 200 dogs were removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay, based on the respondent's redaction of boarding facility and veterinarian information from disclosure on the grounds of public interest litigation privilege.

The Board found the redacted information was not protected by privilege, noting it had been disclosed in previous cases.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide the unredacted information to the appellants' counsel, subject to an undertaking not to release it to anyone else, including the appellants.

The Chief Animal Welfare Inspector (CAWI) brought motions to strike certain grounds of appeal raised by the appellants regarding the removal of over 200 dogs.

The CAWI sought to strike grounds relating to the conduct of inspectors during the removal and alleged Charter violations, arguing the Animal Care Review Board lacks jurisdiction over these matters.

The Board granted the motion to strike the grounds relating to inspector conduct, finding it has no jurisdiction to oversee inspector conduct under the Provincial Animal Welfare Services Act.

The Board also determined it is not a court of competent jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter and struck the appellants' Charter arguments.

However, the Board dismissed the CAWI's request to preclude the appellants from calling evidence on issues from previous proceedings, finding that res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply because the issues in dispute were not identical.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding and horse-riding business, appealed the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector's removal of over 200 dogs from their properties.

The appellants brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs and dismissal of the proceedings, or alternatively an interim stay, alleging untimely and incomplete disclosure by the respondent.

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence of outstanding disclosure and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice to their ability to make full answer and defence.

The appellants, operators of a dog sledding business, brought a motion seeking the return of over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector or a stay of the removal orders.

They argued the search warrants leading to the removal were based on misleading Information to Obtain (ITOs).

The Animal Care Review Board dismissed the motion, finding it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the Ontario Court of Justice, which issued the warrants.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the Chief Animal Welfare Inspector.

They brought a motion seeking the return of the dogs or a stay of the removal orders, arguing that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the Animal Care Review Board filed a factum in a related judicial review proceeding before the Divisional Court.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's factum did not demonstrate aggressive partisanship and that the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias applies to the individual decision-maker, not the entire tribunal.

The appellants, who run a dog sledding business, had over 200 dogs removed by the respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector due to alleged non-compliance with previous orders.

The appellants brought a motion seeking to inspect the dogs, arguing they needed to take their own measurements and expressing concern over the dogs' welfare after three dogs died in the respondent's care.

The Animal Care Review Board found it had jurisdiction to order an inspection under Rule 9.3(d) because the respondent intended to rely on measurements taken during the removal.

However, the Board declined to order the inspection, finding it would not be proportionate or efficient to inspect over 200 dogs for measurements, and noting that the appellants' welfare concerns would be addressed by a separate disclosure order.

The respondent Chief Animal Welfare Inspector brought two motions to strike grounds of appeal, including Charter claims, related to the removal of over 200 dogs from the appellants' dog sledding business.

The appellants requested an adjournment of the motions because a recent disclosure order required the respondent to produce extensive materials regarding the removal and care of the animals.

The Animal Care Review Board granted the adjournment, finding that the pending disclosure would facilitate a more open process and informed participation by providing factual context relevant to the motions.