Zachary D’Onofrio

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the objector status of two individuals who failed to appear at two case management conferences and did not respond to communications.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion, finding the objection to be frivolous and not in good faith due to the continued absence.

As they were the last remaining objectors, the Tribunal referred the aggregate license application back to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and vacated the scheduled hearing dates.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class 'A' aggregate licence.

The Tribunal confirmed the objector status of several individuals and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The finalization of the Procedural Order and Issues List was deferred to allow the self-represented objectors time to review the Ministry's file and expert reports, after which they will confirm whether they wish to maintain objector status or change to participant status.

A second Case Management Conference and a seven-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of Caledon to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, and the refusal by the Niagara Escarpment Commission of development permits, to allow a new aggregate extraction operation (gravel pit).

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with the Town, the Commission, and a neighbouring property owner, resulting in revised site plans and conditions that addressed concerns regarding water, natural heritage, noise, and air quality.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning and meets all legislative tests.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, contingent upon the Crown advising that adequate Indigenous consultation has occurred.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of development permits to allow a new gravel pit operation.

The applicant also sought a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with the Town, the Commission, and a neighbouring property owner, resulting in revised site plans and conditions that addressed concerns regarding traffic, water quality, natural heritage, noise, and air quality.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and adequately mitigates potential adverse impacts.

The Tribunal approved the Official Plan Amendment and recommended approval of the development permits and Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment, issuing an interim order contingent upon confirmation of adequate Indigenous consultation.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of development permits to allow a new gravel pit operation.

The Ministry of Natural Resources also referred the applicant's Aggregate Resources Act licence application to the Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with the Town, the Commission, and a neighbouring landowner, resulting in revised site plans and conditions that addressed concerns regarding water, natural heritage, noise, and air quality.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning, meets all legislative tests, and adequately mitigates potential impacts.

The Tribunal approved the Official Plan Amendment, directed the issuance of the aggregate licence, and recommended approval of the Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment and development permits, subject to an interim order pending confirmation of adequate Indigenous consultation.

The moving party, Friends of Ball’s Bridge & Little Lakes, brought a motion to admit new evidence in an ongoing hearing regarding a proposed gravel pit.

The new evidence included an MNR inspection report, a corrected property survey, wood turtle sighting documents, and videos of dust emissions.

The Tribunal applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence.

The Tribunal admitted the MNR report, the survey, and the wood turtle documents, finding them relevant and not obtainable before the filing deadlines.

However, the Tribunal refused to admit the dust videos, finding they could have been produced earlier and their late admission would prejudice the responding party, who had already closed its case.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission proposed an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan to allow for the development of on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas, among other changes.

Hearing Officers were appointed to receive representations on the proposed amendment.

The Hearing Officers recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments, finding that they meet the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Plan, are consistent with Provincial policies, and are justified.

The amendments include allowing agricultural uses in Earth Science ANSIs, permitting expansions to existing agricultural buildings in key natural heritage features, allowing maple sugar harvesting in the Escarpment Natural Area, and permitting agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses outside of prime agricultural areas in the Escarpment Protection Area.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit and aggregate extraction operation, the parties jointly requested the suspension of all remaining deliverable deadlines in the current Procedural Order.

The suspension was requested to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and consultations with Indigenous groups.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit, the parties jointly requested the suspension of all remaining deliverable deadlines in the current Procedural Order.

The suspension was requested to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and the completion of consultations with Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the submission of a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer an aggregate licence from the objector (the current licensee) to the applicant (the landowner) after the extraction agreement between them expired and the pit sat dormant for over 20 years.

The objector requested a hearing, arguing the transfer should be subject to a condition requiring the applicant to pay $750,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licence.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has an economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act or the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to attach a condition requiring financial compensation to a licence transfer.

The Tribunal held that resolving financial disputes between private parties is not necessary or incidental to its mandate of managing aggregate resources.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer without conditions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit expansion, the Chiefs of Ontario brought a motion to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it in the public interest to adjudicate the issues with fulsome evidence, including from the Chiefs of Ontario, and that the potential prejudice to First Nations communities outweighed any perceived prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming hearing.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer two aggregate licences from the appellant to the respondent landowner after their extraction agreement expired.

The appellant objected, seeking $518,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licences, and the matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to direct financial compensation as a condition of a licence transfer under s. 18(8) of the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal held that resolving contractual disputes and claims for economic loss between a landowner and a licence holder is outside its mandate.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer of the licences to the respondent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on July 2, 2025, regarding an application by V.B. Sand & Gravel Ltd. to amend the Zoning By-law and for an Aggregate Resources Act licence to permit a proposed extraction operation in the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following case management conferences regarding appeals by the applicant.

The appeals relate to the proposed establishment of a new aggregate extraction operation (gravel pit) in the Town of Caledon.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the hearing scheduled to commence in October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order following Case Management Conferences regarding appeals by Blueland Farms Ltd. The appeals relate to a proposed aggregate extraction operation (gravel pit) in Caledon.

The Tribunal established the procedural rules, hearing dates, and the Issues List for the hearing scheduled to commence in October 2025.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate its appeal under the Planning Act regarding a zoning by-law amendment with a referral under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A Pit Below Water licence.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, finding that consolidation would provide efficiencies as the matters involve the same property, common issues, and the same witnesses.

A 13-day merit hearing was scheduled.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a gravel pit expansion, the Tribunal heard two motions.

A motion to adjourn the CMC to allow the Chiefs of Ontario to assess consultation adequacy was dismissed, as they were not a party and no prejudice would result from proceeding.

A motion by the applicant to consolidate the Planning Act appeals with a newly referred Aggregate Resources Act matter was granted, as the matters relate to the same property and proposal, and consolidation would ensure efficiency and avoid predetermination of issues.

At a Case Management Conference regarding proposed aggregate extraction operations, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered whether multiple appeals under the Planning Act, Aggregate Resources Act, and Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act should be consolidated or heard together.

The Tribunal ordered that the matters be heard together pursuant to section 21 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, finding it to be a fair and efficient way to deal with all issues without causing prejudice.

The Tribunal also scheduled future hearing dates and directed ongoing Indigenous consultation.

The applicant sought a Class A Licence for the operation of a proposed quarry above the groundwater level.

Several neighbours objected, raising concerns about noise, traffic, blasting, water quality, and environmental impacts.

The Tribunal considered the criteria under s 12(1) of the Aggregate Resources Act and accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the proposed quarry would have minimal impacts and comply with provincial standards.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to issue the licence subject to prescribed conditions, including an annual noise study.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to permit a gravel pit.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests to schedule a hearing and for an order for discovery.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing or order discovery, noting that Indigenous consultation with Six Nations of the Grand River was ongoing and peer reviews were not yet complete.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow time for these processes to advance.