Reasons are all around – a reviewing court should make a determination regarding adequacy of reasons in the specific context of each case, including information conveyed by way of the order, submissions, as well as comments made during the hearing

20. October 2020 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Municipal Appeals Committee – Variance orders – Legislative compliance – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Hearing Ewanek v. Winnipeg (City), [2020] M.J. No. 157, 2020 MBQB 98, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, June 24, 2020, S. Bond J. Application by Ewanek for judicial review of ...

This was a successful application by property owner for leave to appeal the decision of the Town of Okotoks Subdivision and Development Appeal Board approving a development permit for a daycare adjacent to the property of the Applicant

23. September 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal boards – Municipalities – By-laws – Planning and zoning – Variance orders – Appeals – Judicial review Young v. Okotoks, [2014] A.J. No. 931, 2014 ABCA 275, Alberta Court of Appeal, September 2, 2014, B.K. O’Ferrall J.A. The Applicant, Jeff Young, sought leave to appeal a decision ...

The Applicant (Mr. Plotkine) unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Board had permitted 10 variances for the Respondent neighbours (Allan and Susan Seidenfeld) to build a home that did not comply with the building code.

26. August 2014 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal boards – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Variance orders – Judicial review – Appeals – Parties – Standing – Failure to provide reasons – Evidence Plotkine v Seidenfeld, [2014] O.J. No. 3375, 2014 ONSC 4157, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 16, 2014, T.R. Lederer ...

An appeal was allowed from a Divisional Court decision concluding that the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board (the “Board”) lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a zoning bylaw restricted a normal farming practice. The Divisional Court erred in adopting an interpretation of the words “municipal bylaw” that excluded a zoning bylaw. Therefore, the Board had jurisdiction to determine the issue. However, the Board’s decision was unreasonable, as it did not comply with a provincial policy statement regarding the required distances between farm operations and their neighbours.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – By-laws – Planning and zoning – Permits and licences – Variance orders – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Farm Practices Protection Board – Government policies – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Hill and Hill Farms Ltd. v. Bluewater (Municipality), [2006] O.J. No. 3674, Ontario Court of ...

The City’s Appeal Committee overturned a Variance Order that allowed the Applicant to subdivide his property. An application for judicial review of this decision was dismissed. The Court held that the Appeal Committee did not err in its interpretation of the criteria set out in section 247(3) of the City of Winnipeg Charter. No manifest injustice occurred and the decision was not arbitrary, oppressive or improper. The Appeal Committee did not act in bad faith and there was no breach of natural justice.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Municipalities – Planning and zoning – Variance orders – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Municipal Appeal Committee – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Rohs v. Winnipeg (City), [2006] M.J. No. 275, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, July 6, 2006, McCawley J. The Applicant ...