Zachary D’Onofrio

The appellant held an aggregate licence on property owned by the respondent.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry decided to transfer the licence to the property owner.

The appellant challenged this at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing it should receive financial compensation.

The Tribunal ruled on a preliminary motion that it lacked jurisdiction to consider financial compensation.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal as premature, finding that without a full factual record and substantive decision from the Tribunal, it could not properly review the jurisdictional and policy findings.

At a Case Management Conference, the applicant brought a motion to consolidate several appeals and referrals relating to the proposed Macleod Quarries.

The proceedings included appeals under the Planning Act regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and a referral under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A licence.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal granted the motion to consolidate the proceedings to avoid inconsistent findings and ensure an expeditious resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit aggregate extraction on Crown lands.

The parties raised a threshold issue regarding whether recent amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act render the appeal moot.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion to determine whether the Aggregate Resources Act permits municipal by-laws to regulate quarries on Crown land and whether the appeal is moot.

The applicant sought leave to appeal his convictions and sentence for dredging and filling shore lands without a work permit under the Public Lands Act.

He had been fined $3,000 for each conviction, placed on probation, and made subject to a rehabilitation order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed grounds of appeal had no merit and did not meet the high threshold of raising a question of law essential in the public interest or for the due administration of justice.

The applicant sought location approval for a proposed dam and hydroelectric facility under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry issued a Notice of Intention to Refuse Location Approval, citing uncertainty regarding areas to be flooded and insufficient hydrological data.

The applicant requested an inquiry.

The Inquiry Officers found that the applicant's hydraulic modelling was reliable and sufficient to predict that water level changes would remain within natural fluctuations, resulting in negligible biological impacts.

The Inquiry Officers also found the applicant's Aboriginal consultation efforts to be adequate.

Concluding that the intended refusal was not fair, sound, or reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes of the Act, the Inquiry Officers recommended that the Minister approve the location of the proposed dam subject to conditions.

The applicant proposed a dam and hydroelectric facility, which the Minister intended to refuse.

The applicant requested an inquiry under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act.

The Ontario Waterpower Association (OWA) sought to be added as a party to the inquiry, arguing the decision would set a precedent for the waterpower industry.

The Inquiry Officers denied the request, finding that a concern about potential precedential effect is insufficient to establish a 'direct interest' as required by the Act.