Barristers & Solicitors*

Menu

Ontario cases.


To view sample cases that we have been involved in, browse by location by clicking on the geographical area you are interested in, or browse by subject area by clicking on an icon below.

Our Work
Location
Subject
Court
  1. Town of Bracebridge v. Bakema (Little Europe Resort)

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Town of Bracebridge passed a comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2006-120, for which there was a site-specific appeal filed by the Little Europe Resort. The Board authorized a zoning change to CT-9H subject to the provision that a site plan agreement be entered into. The Town in its motion to the Board is requesting that the Board issue its final Order without a site plan agreement.


    Held:

    Motion allowed, final Order issued


    Reasons:

    Roelf Bakema was agreeable to the change and none of the other original appellants appeared at the hearing. The Board grants the motion by the Town of Bracebridge based upon the uncontested affidavit evidence of Matthew Holmes and the Board will issue its final Order with respect to By-law No. 2006-120.


    Document(s):



  2. Simcoe (County) v. Innisfil (Town)

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Agricultural, Commercial Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicants own and operate Lake Simcoe Marina and currently operate a year round commercial boat storage business on the subject lands that is related to their Lake Simcoe Marina business. By-law 106-12 seeks to regularize commercial boat storage on the subject lands. The By-law applies to a portion of the lands within the Agriculture designation. The By-law does not permit commercial boat storage on any lands designated Natural Environment. The Town adopted the By-law to permit commercial boat storage on the lands currently designated and zoned Agricultural. The County appealed the matter to the Board. The principal issue before the Board is whether the commercial boat storage is a secondary agricultural use, as set out in the Town’s Official Plan.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed and by-law is repealed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the Official Plan clearly requires the use to be both secondary and agricultural. Regardless of whether one considers the commercial boat storage to be secondary to the livestock operation, no amount of skilful interpretation results in the conclusion that commercial boat storage is an agricultural use. The commercial boat storage is unrelated to an agricultural use on the subject lands. The evidence before the Board is clear that the commercial boat storage is related to the marina business owned by the Applicants and operated several kilometres away from the subject lands. The Board concludes that Town of Innisfil By-law No. 106-12 which permits commercial boat storage on the subject lands does not conform to the Town Official Plan and, as such, does not conform to the County Official Plan, does not conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.


    Document(s):



  3. Hamilton v. Correia

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Costs, Residential Development, Severances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Joseph Hamilton seeks costs against Richard Correia arising from a hearing in which Mr. Correia appealed against a severance granted to Mr. Hamilton by the Committee of Adjustment for a property in the Town of Wasaga Beach. In a decision issued on May 28, 2013, the Board found in favour of Mr. Hamilton. The amount Mr. Hamilton is seeking is not stated directly in his Motion, but his counsel indicates in accompanying documentation that Mr. Hamilton claims is $8,241.57 in legal and planning expenses.


    Held:

    Motion for costs dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board’s rules do not provide leeway to award costs when a party’s conduct has been found to be reasonable, but resulted in “inconvenience and financial loss for other parties.” Further, an appellant is under no obligation to provide expert witnesses. Failure to present evidence can be considered to constitute frivolous or vexatious behaviour and worthy of the awarding of costs, but does not apply in this case.


    Document(s):



  4. Robertson v. Town of Bracebridge

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Accessory Dwelling Units, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Caroline Robertson and Jill Popkey (Applicants/Appellants) have appealed from the refusal of the Council of the Town of Bracebridge to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment for the subject property. The property is designated Residential by the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan and zoned Residential Type 1 by Zoning By-law No. 2006-120. The purpose and effect of the proposed Zoning By-law is to rezone the subject property to Residential Type 1 – Special 56 in order to permit all uses in the R1 Zone including one accessory apartment dwelling unit. The current application results from a complaint by a local resident who suspected that this location contained multiple dwellings. As a result, the Building Department directed the owners to either comply with the permitted use or to apply for permission to allow an accessory apartment unit.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board, in having reviewed and considered the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and the submissions of counsel, finds that the rezoning proposal fails to conform to the spirit and intent of certain policies of the Official Plan. More importantly, the Board is not convinced that the proposal is consistent with the principles of good land use planning, nor can it be seen to have sufficient regard for the public safety and interest. The Board’s view, by virtue of the shape and dimensions of the subject property along with the existing zoning standard deficiencies, permitting a second living/dwelling unit at this location is not conducive to the principles of good planning.


    Document(s):



  5. Breadner v. The Town of Blue Mountains

    Location:

    Grey/Bruce


    Subject:

    Aggregate Extraction


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Application for a Class A License for the removal of aggregate.


    Held:

    License issued upon settlement


    Reasons:

    The parties had reached a settlement. The Board had received revised Site Plans and Site Plan Notes from the parties confirming the settlement has been properly implemented. Therefore, the Board directs the Minister of Natural Resources to issue a Class A, category 3 above the water table license for the property.


    Document(s):



  6. Nizar Fakirani Professional Corp. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    The Applicant seeks to permit an existing private school to continue to provide full time English as a second language and high school courses on the main floor of the building. A variance is required from Employment Districts Zoning By-law No. 24982 to permit a 140 square metre private secondary school. The Committee of Adjustment refused to authorize the variance and the Applicant has appealed the decision.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    The board finds that the variance is desirable for the appropriate use of the land and building, the general intent and purpose of the By-law and of the Official Plan are maintained and it is minor in impact. The Board further states that there were not neighbours who attended the hearing raising issues with the school; it provides employment in an area designated as an Employment Area; and there was no evidence suggesting any adverse impact.


    Document(s):



  7. Township of Muskoka Lakes v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources)

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Heritage Conservation, Judicial Review, Renewable Energy, Shoreline Development


    Court:

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court


    Application/issue:

    The Township sought judicial review of the Minister of Natural Resource’s decision to issue a section 28 order prohibiting the use by the public of Crown land adjacent to the Bala Falls. The MNR was prepared to lease the lands to Swift River Energy Ltd. to develop the site for hydroelectric power. The Township sought the following declarations, orders and relief: (1) declaring that a portage protected by section 65(4) of the Public Lands Act passes over the site; (2) prohibiting the Minister or any other person from interfering with that portage; (3) setting aside the water frontage at the Site for recreational purposes and access purposes pursuant to section 3 of the Public Lands Act; and (4) prohibiting any interference with that frontage.


    Held:

    Application dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Township has failed to establish that the Ministry’s decision to issue a Notice under s. 28 was unreasonable such that it could invoke our right to interfere with it under the court’s judicial review authority. There can be no reasonable dispute that there are safety issues concerning these lands that include rapids, waterfalls and dams among other hazards. It may be that there were other alternatives to address those safety concerns but the fact that the Ministry chose between different options does not constitute their decision to adopt one option over another as unreasonable.


    Document(s):



  8. Craig Mills v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Minor Variances, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal to the Board for minor variance to permit height of 26.5 ft. of an accessory structure (garage) whereas the maximum permitted height is 20.0 ft. pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed


    Reasons:

    A mediation process was held in which both parties agreed that the Applicant would not use the garage as a sleeping cabin or for habitable space. In addition, there were no other negative impacts from the variance and the Township’s Director of Planning concluded that the variance was minor. Therefore, the Board allowed the variance.


    Document(s):



  9. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 938 v. Wei

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Condominium Development, Industrial Development, Minor Variances


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Jane Wei operates the Middlefield Kumon Centre for mathematics and reading in the second floor of an industrial condominium in the City of Toronto. Some years ago, the City advised the applicant to obtain a variance for that use, which she did in 2006 and 2008. She had to reapply again in 2013 as the variance was only valid for two years and upon reapplication, the Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 938 appealed the Committee’s variance decision to the Board, alleging that the centre represented problems for the building management. Two other corporations with factories nearby, appeared to oppose the variance as well: Owens Corning Insulating Systems Canada LP and Trench Canada.


    Held:

    Appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    For the purposes of this appeal, the Board finds no evidence on which to suppose any digression from the four statutory tests at this time. The variance to the applicable Zoning By-law of the City of Toronto is authorized in accordance with the decision of the Committee of Adjustment. The Board found that, if the Motion were granted, the established situation would be compromised primarily on the basis of an apprehension – unproven – that a non-party might have difficulties with MOE at some indeterminate point in the future.


    Document(s):



  10. Still’s Bay Landing Corporation v. Township of Muskoka Lakes

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Recreational Development, Shoreline Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Still’s Bay Landing Corporation applied to amend the Township of Muskoka Lakes Zoning By-law 87-87 in order to increase the size of the marina from 38 to 50 slips. The council of the Township of Muskoka Lakes denied the request. Still’s Bay Landing Corporation appealed its denial to the Board. The subject lands are designated “Waterfront” in both the Regional Municipality of Muskoka Official Plan and the Township Official Plan. The property in question is zoned Waterfront Commercial (WC2) in the Township of Muskoka Lakes Zoning By-law 87-87. The By-law limits the dock length to 80 feet and the width to 25% of the lot frontage. The Appellant/Applicant originally applied for a dock length of 150 feet and width of 75.6% and a side lot setback of two feet where the By-law requires 30 feet.


    Held:

    Appeal allowed in part


    Reasons:

    The Board accepts that there are problems with the existing use of the marina. It also accepts that marina operations such as this are necessary to the development of recreational tourism and cottage development. The Provincial Policy Statement, and both Official Plans provide for recreational and cottage development that is a major component of the local economy. The Board finds that the zoning amendment presented before the board is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plans and represents good planning.


    Document(s):



Collingwood

Orillia

Owen Sound

Sudbury

© 2019 Elston Watt Barristers & Solicitors*. All rights reserved.

 

*Practicing in association