Jeffrey J. Wilker, Partner

Profile Photo

Email: Click here to Email

Phone: 416-868-3118

Admitted to the Law Society of Upper Canada in 1990

 

Practice Highlights

Jeff Wilker focuses his practice on land use law and routinely develops novel approaches to resolve complex legal problems. The provision of top shelf legal guidance to his clients is a hallmark of his practice. Jeff acts on cutting edge matters and prides himself on his ability to “think outside of the box.”

Jeff’s practice involves all aspects of municipal and planning law, including land use litigation, expropriation, environmental and constitutional matters. He appears before Municipal Councils, at provincial tribunals such as the Ontario Municipal Board, and in the Courts, on behalf of municipalities, public agencies, corporations and private individuals. He is the Town/Township solicitor for a number of municipalities.
 

Education

  • Bachelor of Arts (Honours), Victoria College, University of Toronto (1985)
  • Bachelor of Laws, Osgoode Hall Law School (1988)
  • Master of Laws (Constitutional Law), Osgoode Hall Law School (2000)

Practice Areas

  • Land Use Litigation
  • Planning
  • Municipal
  • Expropriation
  • Environmental
  • Constitutional

Professional Activities and Affiliations

  • Canadian Bar Association - Municipal and Environmental Law Sections
  • Advocates’ Society
  • Ontario Expropriation Association
  • First Amendment Lawyers’ Association
  • Past President of Phi Delta Phi International Legal Fraternity
  • Officer and Director of Phi Delta Phi (Ontario Society)
  • Past Board member of the High Park Curling and Lawn Tennis Club

 

 

Cases of Note:

Significant Ontario Municipal Board Decisions

  • Preston Sand and Gravel Company Limited v. Puslinch (Township). PL090122, March 10, 2010.
    Acted on behalf of the aggregate company to obtain approval of its proposal to zone and licence a pit including extraction below the water table.  Issues included environmental, hydrogeology, noise, dust, traffic, social impact analyses re the haul route, and the establishment of a private haul route, and official plan conformity.
     

  • Amaranth (Township) and Edelbrock Bros. Limited. PL050096, March 16, 2010.
    Acted on behalf of the Township to finalize the appeals on its 2004 Plan resulting in the confirmation of the boundaries of the Hamlet of Laurel.  This confirmation recognized development lands consisting of approximately 100 lots on the eastern boundary of the Hamlet.  Issues included the transition provisions of the Growth Plan; the agricultural capability of the lands and Minimum Separation Distances from agricultural operations on surrounding lands.

  • Amaranth (Township) and Allto Investments Holdings. PL050096, February 25, 2010.
    Acted on behalf of the Township to deal with existing and proposed peat extraction operations.  The Ontario Municipal Board approved modifications to the Township’s Official Plan resulting in the incorporation of peat extraction – industrial polices into the Plan. 

  • Amaranth (Township) and Hamount Investments Limited/Valleygrove Investments Incorporated. PL030316, August 5, 2009.
    Acted on behalf of the Township.  The Ontario Municipal Board approved the zoning and conditions of draft plan approval for the estate residential subdivisions with a yield of 92 lots.  Issues included the appropriate servicing of the subdivision with the resulting servicing being by a Township public water system and private septic systems with tertiary treatment; the establishment of this development in the vicinity of Town of Orangeville wells; the transition provisions of the Greenbelt Plan and the Growth Plan; and conditions of draft approval to address the continued maintenance of a pioneer cemetery and buffers to the existing butternut trees on the development lands.

  • The Murray Group Limited v. Centre Wellington (Township) and PERA. PL050956, May 12, 2008.
    Acted on behalf of the aggregate company to obtain approval of the proposal to zone and license two gravel pits. Issues included environmental, hydrogeology, noise, dust, traffic, ecological assessment, fish habitat, proximity to a hamlet and official plan conformity.
     

  • Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. v. Amaranth (Township). (2007) 58 O.M.B.R. 236.
    Acted on behalf of the Township on a wind turbine farm proposal, resulting in a settlement of the Township issues, secured in a number of development agreements. Primary issues at the hearing involved transformer noise and the operation of aerodromes in the vicinity of the proposed turbines, including constitutional issues regarding aeronautics being a federal undertaking.
     

  • Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Devins et al. (2007) 55 O.M.B.R. 474.
    Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton with respect to decision on the development serviced by private septic tertiary treatment systems and boundary limits for hamlet of Glen Williams. The proposal was to service the development with the “Waterloo Biofilter”, a nitrate removal system. Review of Servicing guidelines and municipalities being more stringent in their guidelines than the Ministry of Environment.
     

  • Paletta International Corporation v. Regional Municipality of Halton. (2006) 54 O.M.B.R. 91.
    Acted on behalf of the Region of Halton to bring a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act precluded the Board proceeding with the hearing, and seeking a determination of the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to the applicability of the “Clergy principle.” The Divisional Court subsequently set aside the Board’s decision on jurisdictional grounds.
     

  • Limerick (Township) v. Trident Members Inc. (2005) 52 O.M.B.R. 77.
    Acted on behalf of the developer seeking to have approval of an additional 52 lots to be added to an 88 lot subdivision of which 31 lots were within 300 metres of the shoreline and were proposed to be serviced by septic systems including phosphorus tertiary treatment. The Ontario Municipal Board deferred consideration for a further period of observation and monitoring. Remaining additional lots were draft approved in separate hearings.
     

  • Limerick (Township) v. Hastings (County). (2004) 48 O.M.B.R. 299.
    Successfully acted on behalf of a developer seeking a review of a prior settlement decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, as new scientific research and evidence warranted a rehearing. This is a leading decision on the Ontario Municipal Board’s section 43 review process. Decision also deals with lapsing condition and vacant land condominium approval.
     

  • Paletta v. Region of Halton and City of Burlington. PL020384, July 20, 2004.
    Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton to oppose the conversion of a parcel of land consisting of approximately 329 acres from employment lands to residential lands. Decision included an analysis of market issues including land supply and economic analysis.
     

  • Mono (Town) Official Plan Amendment No. 23. (2000) 41 O.M.B.R. 190.
    Motion for dismissal based on the lack of filing of the requisite appeal fee on the Official Plan Amendment by the appellant.
     

  • Hoddinott v. Halton Hills (Town). (1999) 39 O.M.B.R. 325.
    Review of the criteria for a vacant land condominium and the determination by the Ontario Municipal Board that it did not have jurisdiction to approve same as the Condominium Act refinements had not yet come into effect.
     

  • Babic v. Halton Hills (Town) Committee of Adjustment. (1997) 35 O.M.B.R. 35.
    Successfully acted on behalf of the Town of Halton Hills. The Ontario Municipal Board confirmed that it neither had the jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief or the jurisdiction to permit the extension of the non conforming use in these circumstances.
     

  • Muhos Development Corp. v. Mason (1993) 28 O.M.B.R. 495
    Co-counsel. Secured an award of costs in favour of client owing to change by opposition of position at hearing.
     

Cases of Note: Significant Joint Board Decisions

  • Re Yonge Street Regeneration Project. (1998) 36 O.M.B.R. 321, 48 M.P.L.R. (2d) 77, 65 L.C.R. 180. Ontario Joint Board.

    Co-counsel. Leading decision on the use of section 28 of the Planning Act for community improvement. Joint Board hearing dealing with hearing of necessity under the Expropriations Act, official plan amendment and rezoning.
     

  • Ontario (Joint Board under Consolidated Hearings Act) v. Ontario Hydro. (1993) 11 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 135, 61 O.A.C. 345, 15 M.P.L.R. (2d) 196, 13 O.R. (3d) 177, 50 L.C.R. 161, Divisional Court.

    Co-counsel. Leading decision on the jurisdictional authority of the Joint Board to determine its own procedure.
     

Cases of Note: Significant Court Decisions

  • Niagara Escarpment Commission v. Paletta International Corp. (2008), 39 M.P.L.R. (4th) 6, 229 O.A.C. 112, 57 O.M.B.R. 264, Divisional Court.

    Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton as the Divisional Court set aside the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Divisional Court determined that the developers’ applications were subject to the current Niagara Escarpment and Planning Development Act; that the “clergy principle” was a policy decision, and not a rule of statutory interpretation; and that the developer did not have a vested, accrued or accruing right that such a decision violated. Leave to appeal was dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
     

  • Niagara Escarpment Commission v. Paletta International Corp., cited as Halton (Region) v. Ontario (Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing). (2007) 31 M.P.L.R. (4th) 252, 55 O.M.B.R. 443, Divisional Court, Motion for Leave to Appeal.

    Successfully acted on behalf of the Region of Halton on the motion for leave to appeal from the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Divisional Court granted leave as there was reason to doubt correctness of Board's decision because it failed to properly address the basic jurisdictional issue raised before it.
     

  • Ron Coles Holdings Ltd. v. Mono (Town). 2004 CarswellOnt 1813; Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

    Successfully obtained a ruling from the Court that each party would bear their own costs arising out of litigation from a front ending agreement for a municipal water tower and associated water system.
     

  • Niagara Falls Bridge Commission v. Niagara-on-the-Lake. July 12, 2001, Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).

    Order obtained from the Court determining that its federal undertaking was exempt from the Planning and Building Code Act regimes of Ontario.
     

  • 913719 Ontario Ltd. v. North York (City). (1998) 47 M.P.L.R. (2d) 274, 114 O.A.C. 353, 37 O.M.B.R. 142, 41 O.R. (3d) 298, Divisional Court.

    Successfully obtained a ruling from the Court that it would deal with its proceeding prior to the Ontario Municipal Board proceeding. Case is a leading decision on the determination of the primacy of forum between the Court and the Ontario Municipal Board matters on challenges to the validity of zoning by-laws on constitutional grounds.
     

  • Richmond Hill (Town) v. York Region Condominium Corporation. October 31, 1996; Ontario Court of Justice (General Division).

    Co-counsel representing the Town in proceeding to enforce orders under the Building Code Act against a “sinking” condominium building.
     

  • 913719 Ontario Ltd. v. Niagara Falls (City). (1995) 29 M.P.L.R. (2d) 1, 84 O.A.C. 149, Ontario Court of Appeal.

    Successfully defended major adult video chain on charges of operating as an adult entertainment by-law contrary to the City of Niagara Falls adult entertainment by-law and zoning by-law resulting in the Ontario Court of Appeal determining that the store was a retail store under the City’s zoning by-law, declaring the adult entertainment parlour by-law invalid, in part, and quashing the prior convictions by the lower court.

 

 

Publications and Presentations

Jeff has published numerous articles for municipal publications. He has been a speaker at many conferences presenting to Chief Administrative Officers, Clerks, Treasurers, Planners, Appraisers, Developers and Lawyers.
 

Publications

Jeffrey J. Wilker and David N. Germain, “Pesticides, Hogs, and Nutrient Management – Rulemaking for Multiple Government Regulation” , Legal Alert, October, 2007.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker and Kenneth G. Hare, “Courts Defer to Municipalities – An analysis of the Spraytech and Croplife municipal pesticide by-law decisions”, Legal Alert, Volume 24, Number 11, February 2006.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “Expropriations: The Taking of Land”, Land Use Reporter*, Reprinted December 2004. Legally Speaking*, Reprinted July 1995. Professional Administrator, Reprinted, Winter, 1994. Municipal Monitor, February 1994.

 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “OMB Revisits the “Clergy Principle””, Legal Alert, Volume 23, Number 3, June 2004.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “Municipalities Not Contractually Bound by Zoning – A review of down zoning jurisprudence”, Legal Alert, Volume 22, Number 5, August 2003.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker and Joseph Guiliana, “The Municipal Building Department – The In House Guarantor of Building”, Butterworths Municipal Enforcement Strategies Seminar, Spring, 2003.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “The Ontario Municipal Board – Abolition of Not?”,Legal Alert, Volume 21, Number 8, November 2001.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker and Robert A. Gubbins, “Municipal Licensing Powers: How Can We Make A Successful Transition?” AMCTO Spring Seminars, April, May 2002.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker. “Federal Undertakings Are Constitutionally Exempt From Land Use Regulation”, Land Use Reporter*, Fall, 2001.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker. “The Lawful Installation of Medians on Highways – Case Note, TDL Group Ltd. v. Niagara (Regional Municipality), 55 O.R. (3d) 1”, Land Use Reporter*, Fall, 2001.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker. “Tendering … According to the Supreme Court of Canada – Case Note, Naylor Group Inc. v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd, 2 S.C.R. 943” , Land Use Reporter*, Fall 2001.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker. “SCAN – Canada’s Largest Fibre Optic Community Network”, Land Use Reporter*, Fall 2001.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “Sex, Land Use and the Law: A Comparative Analysis of the effect of the First Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights and Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the application of municipal land use and licensing controls to adult land uses in the United States and Canada”, Collected Papers, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Summer 2000 Seminars. "
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “Integrity and Fairness in the Tender Process” , Land Use Reporter*, July 1999.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “Candour, Frankness and Impartiality – The Rule of Notice in Municipal Act Legislation”, Land Use Reporter*, July 1999.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “Septic Approvals -- Confusion”, Land Use Reporter*, February 1999, Reprinted Municipal Monitor, June/July 1999.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “Wrongful Doings – Building Permits”, Land Use Reporter*, February 1999.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “Metropolis – Yonge/Dundas Redevelopment Scheme”, Land Use Reporter*, February, 1999.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “User Pay Offers Fiscal Relief”, Municipal Monitor, May 1996.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, “The Regulation of Building Construction -- Chapter 3”, Thomson, Rogers on Municipal Liability, 1996: Canada Law Book.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker and Lawrence H. Mandel, “Municipalities: The Defendants of the 90's: Update”, Municipal World, February, 1994.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker and Lawrence H. Mandel, “Municipalities: The Defendants of the 90’s”, Municipal World, March 1993 to August 1993 (six parts), Without Prejudice, February 1993 to April 1993 (three parts).

 

 

Presentations

Jeffrey J. Wilker, AMCTO Conference, Niagara Falls, Presentation of Thomson, Rogers Prize in Municipal Law, 2007.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, Municipal Enforcement Strategies, presented at Butterworths Conference, Toronto, 2003.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, The New Municipal Act – Municipal Licensing, presented at Insight Seminar, Toronto, 2002.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, Municipal Licensing, presented at AMCTO Seminar, Toronto, 2002.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, Zoning and Licensing: an American-Canadian Comparison, presented at First Amendment Lawyers Association, Niagara Falls, Summer 2000 Seminars.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, Costs: Section 32 of the Expropriations Act, Ontario Expropriation Association Annual Conference, Toronto, 1997.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker and Roger T. Beaman, Can We Afford the Process? – Environmental Assessment presented at Ontario Professional Planners Institute Annual Conference, Niagara Falls,1993.
 

Jeffrey J. Wilker, What's Happening? -- Environmental Assessment Reform, Seminar Moderator at Ontario Professional Planners Institute Annual Conference, Niagara Falls, 1993.

 

 In the Media

Orangeville Banner. "Safety upgrades part of Orica, ELGV deal,"
June 14, 2010

Orangeville Citizen. "ELGV settles with Orica as OMB hearing continues."
June 17, 2010

Orangeville Citizen. "Master's Creek residents should have known about sidewalks: lawyer,"
February 18, 2010 

Orangeville Citizen. "Orica wins right to remain in Dufferin,"
July 16, 2009.

Orangeville Banner. “Court grants injunction to Orica,”
June 15, 2009.

Orangeville Citizen. “Orica appeals, seeks interim zoning order,” 
June 11, 2009.

Guelph Mercury. “Neighbours Object to Gravel Pits Near Elora,”
March 7, 2008.

Orangeville Banner. "Turbine OMB to resume,"
February 25, 2008.

Orangeville Citizen. “Transformer Noise Dominates OMB Hearing,”
February 23, 2008.

Fergus-Elora News Express. “Gravel Pit Hearing on Hold for Two Weeks,”
February 13, 2008.

Orangeville Citizen. “Grand Valley wind hearing goes to mediation,”
January 23, 2008.

Orangeville Banner. “OMB to reopen hearing on Amaranth turbines,”
November 23, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “OMB reserves Amaranth turbine decision,”
October 25, 2007.

Orangeville Banner. “Decision pending on Amaranth wind turbines,”
October, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “Amaranth Turbine Hearings To End Today,”
October 18, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “OMB Turbine Hearing Nears End,”
October 11, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “Turbine hearings likely to end next week,”
October 4, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “Amaranth turbines go to mediation,”
September 13, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “Amaranth OMB hearing set to begin Tuesday,”
September 6, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “OMB clears Melancthon portion of wind farm,”
August 2, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “Amaranth appeals Melancthon II ESR decision,”
March 29, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “OMB outlines wind hearing format,”
March 15, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “Melancthon close to turbine approval,”
February 15, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “OMB turbine hearing might take 10 weeks,”
February 22, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “OMB pre-hearing concludes at Laurel,”
March 3, 2007.

Orangeville Citizen. “Ice renders wind turbines idle,”
December 7, 2006.

Rochester Democrat Chronicle. “Rochester-Toronto Ferry,”
February 5, 2006.

 

 

 

← Back   Print This Page   Email This Page