Barrister & Solicitor | Integrity Commissioner

Menu

Motion to Dismiss

  1. Thomasfield Homes Limited v. Whiteley

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Plan of Subdivision, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Motion to the Board to dismiss an appeal of Thomasfield’s approvals for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision pursuant to subsections 17(45), 34(35) and 51(53) of the Planning Act. Further, the appellant states that the City should require a Secondary Plan on lands surrounding the subject property; applicant be required to conduct a more detailed Environmental Impact Study; no development on southern and western portions of subject property; conditions 13, 15 and 25 should be more detailed; and development should be modified to include appropriate parkland dedication.


    Held:

    Motion granted, appeal dismissed


    Reasons:

    The Board found that the appeal did not disclose any apparent planning grounds upon which the plan or part of the plan that is subject to the appeal could be approved or refused by the Board. The Board stated that raising apprehensions is not sufficient to sustain an appeal, and therefore the Board grants the Motion to Dismiss on the ground enunciated under subsection (a)(i) only of subsections 17(35), 34(35) and 51(53) of the Planning Act.


    Document(s):



  2. Moss v. Town of Bracebridge

    Location:

    Muskoka/Parry Sound/Haliburton


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Residential Development


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Appeal from a decision of the Town of Bracebridge to pass Zoning By-law Amendment 2011-011, which rezoned lands from R1-2 to R3-18. The purpose of the By-law Amendment is to allow for the construction of 40 townhouse units on a cul-de-sac and two semi-detached dwelling units along with parkland and a storm water management facility. Counsel for the applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, pursuant to subsection 34(25) of the Planning Act.


    Held:

    Motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed


    Reasons:

    The Board finds that the appellant’s reasons for appeal are not substantiated and therefore the Board concludes from the appellant’s submissions that there would be nothing that would allow the Board, in whole or in part, to allow all or part of her appeal. There is no compelling evidence that the Town of Bracebridge failed to give proper notice as prescribed by the Planning Act of the subject application and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2011-011, and therefore there are no technical grounds for appeal on that basis.


    Document(s):



  3. Signum Corporation v. City of Peterborough and Wal-Mart Canada Corp.

    Location:

    Greater Golden Horseshoe


    Subject:

    Commercial Development, Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Shopping Centre Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Signum Corporation has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act in regard to Official Plan Amendment No. 126 of the City of Peterborough and further, has appealed to the Board under subsection 34(19) of the Act in regard to Zoning By-law Nos. 04-037 and 04-038 of the City of Peterborough. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. has brought a motion under subsections 17(45) and 34(25) of the Act to dismiss the appeals. Wal-Mart seeks its costs incurred in bringing this motion on a substantial indemnity basis.


    Held:

    Motion granted


    Reasons:

    Based on the affidavit evidence submitted by Wal-Mart the Board finds that OPA 126 and By-laws 04-37 and 04-38 are consistent with the City’s policies. The Official Plan sets out a multi-nodal retail commercial structure, which reflects the Wal-Mart site, adjacent to the designated Portage Node and the proposed Signum site in the southwest part sector of the City, which is independent of a Shopping Node designation. The Board finds that the proposal before it represents an incremental expansion of the designated Portage Node and that it reinforces the City’s planned commercial structure.


    Document(s):



  4. East Beach Community Assn. v. City of Toronto

    Location:

    City of Toronto


    Subject:

    Motion to Dismiss, Official Plan Amendments, Residential Development, Zoning By-law Amendments


    Court:

    Ontario Municipal Board


    Application/issue:

    Whether the appeals disclose any apparent planning grounds on which appeals can be given or refused.


    Held:

    Grants motion to dispense with the hearing


    Reasons:

    It is not good enough to simply raise apprehension. It would not constitute apparent planning ground by saying that further expert study is required with the hope that once a hearing is convened, more real issues can come forth. The Board is entitled to examine the reasons stated to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons. This is not to say that the Board should take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case. This does not allow the Board to make a hasty conclusion as to the merit of an issue. Nor does it mean that every appellant should draft the appeal with punctilious care and arm itself with iron-clad reason for fear of being struck down. What these particular provisions allow the Board to do is seek out whether there is authenticity in the reasons stated, whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process.


    Document(s):