A. Biggart

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-unit townhouse development on a property currently containing a single-detached dwelling.

The municipality argued the applications were premature due to an ongoing Heritage Conservation District study and that the proposal represented overdevelopment.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not premature, as no heritage freeze by-law had been enacted.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals on planning grounds, finding that while the site was suitable for some intensification, the proposed density was approximately 70% higher than permitted and would cause unacceptable privacy and overlook impacts on adjacent properties.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a heritage permit to facilitate a 52-unit townhouse development on an assembly of lands that included a designated heritage property and lands adjacent to a natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the development in principle subject to conditions.

The Tribunal found that the 15-metre buffer to the valleylands must be designated and zoned as Natural Area, but permitted its use as a Privately Owned, Publicly Accessible Space (POPS) for passive recreation.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed development conserved the cultural heritage resources of the site, represented an appropriate level of intensification, and was compatible with the character of the surrounding stable residential neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential development of up to 322 units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans, representing good land use planning.

At a Case Management Conference, the City of Burlington brought an uncontested motion to approve parts of its new Official Plan, modify a site-specific policy reflecting a settlement with Mattamy James Street Limited Partnership, and dismiss the appeal of Infinity Developments Group Inc. The Tribunal granted the motion, approving the Residential Neighbourhood Area and related policy, modifying the plan to reflect the Mattamy settlement, and dismissing Infinity's appeal under s. 17(45) of the Planning Act for failing to articulate its issues despite ample opportunity.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's Development Charges By-law No. 0133-2022.

The parties reached a settlement to shift 37 roads projects from in-period eligible costs to post-period benefits, resulting in rate reductions for residential, industrial, and non-industrial uses.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert evidence that the amendments conform with the Development Charges Act and approved the amended schedules to the by-law.

The City of Toronto brought a motion on consent for an order bringing into force the unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 (OPA 409) and Zoning By-law 702-2024, which relate to the redevelopment of Villiers Island in the Port Lands.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities and approved a minor modification to OPA 409 to address concerns raised by LaFarge Canada Inc. regarding its adjacent cement terminal.

The Tribunal ordered that the unappealed sections of OPA 409 came into force on July 30, 2024, and established a procedural order for the hearing of the remaining site-specific and precinct-wide appeals by the Toronto Port Authority.

During a hearing on the merits of appeals concerning Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and heritage permits, it was revealed that an expert witness for the appellants had communicated via email with another of the appellants' experts who had already testified.

The Town of Oakville requested disclosure of the emails, which the appellants initially refused, citing litigation privilege.

After the emails were eventually disclosed, the Town indicated its intent to bring a motion to dismiss the appeals with prejudice based on alleged perjury and violations of the expert duty acknowledgement.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and set a schedule for the Town's motion to dismiss to proceed in writing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement, and the applicant filed a motion for approval of the settlement instruments.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting deadlines for responding materials from non-consenting parties and scheduled the motion to be heard in writing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Aurora Official Plan, 2024.

The Tribunal granted party status to Allaura Limited Partnership, 16 20 22 Allaura Blvd Inc., and Macont Developments Inc. on consent.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation, and the Appellants agreed to provide a draft issues list to the Town to facilitate instructions from Town Council.

A second Case Management Conference was not scheduled pending the outcome of mediation efforts.

The appellants appealed the approval of the Keswick Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 147), arguing that its Urban Area boundary did not conform to the mapping in the Greenbelt Plan and the York Region Official Plan, which appeared to include the subject lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the maps were not congruent, the higher-tier plans explicitly direct that precise settlement boundaries are to be determined by local official plans.

The Tribunal concluded that the Keswick Secondary Plan correctly interpreted the boundary policies and was not in conflict with the higher-tier planning instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1463292 Ontario Inc. and Taylor Rogers against the Town of Oakville's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Heritage Permit applications for a 57-unit development.

The Tribunal directed the appellants to submit a revised proposal and supporting documents to the Town and Region of Halton, and ordered the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List for a 15-day hearing scheduled for early 2025.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Oakville's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a 57-unit development, the Tribunal consolidated related Ontario Heritage Act appeals with the planning appeals on consent.

The parties agreed to attempt to resolve a dispute over the Region of Halton's issue regarding a Record of Site Condition, failing which a motion to strike the issue will be heard at the next CMC.

A 15-day hearing remains scheduled for January 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the Town of Georgina's Official Plan Amendment No. 147 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 500-2023-006.

The Tribunal granted one appellant's request to be removed as a party to the other's site-specific appeal.

A five-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for February 10, 2025, and a Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Oakville's refusal to pass an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 57-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Region of Halton and Participant status to several local residents.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits for January 2025 and directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Middleburg Developments Inc. and 1819213 Ontario Inc. against the Region of York and the Town of Georgina concerning an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Tribunal approved a phased approach for the hearings, finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List for the first phase, and scheduled a four-day video hearing for the Official Plan Amendment issues and a subsequent Case Management Conference for the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment issues.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendment 115, which provides direction on the evolution of mall-based community nodes.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised OPA 115 represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with applicable growth plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, and OPA 115 was modified and approved in accordance with the settlement, with certain policies adjourned or unaffected.

The Applicant/Appellant requested the scheduling of a Hearing on the Merits for appeals concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 660-unit residential development.

The Town and other parties requested a further Case Management Conference (CMC) to review recently submitted revised plans and studies.

The Tribunal found it premature to schedule a hearing without knowing the narrowed issues and directed that a further CMC be held to allow the parties time to review the revisions and potentially reach a settlement.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals to the Vaughan Official Plan 2010, specifically the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, along with related site-specific Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plans of Subdivision.

Based on uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal approved modifications to the Secondary Plan's parking and holding symbol policies, finding they support transit-oriented development and conform with provincial and regional policies.

The Tribunal also approved the site-specific zoning and subdivision appeals in principle, subject to conditions, to facilitate high-density, mixed-use developments along the Steeles Avenue corridor.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated August 30, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended paragraph 23 to correct the commencement date of a five-day video hearing for an appeal from June 20, 2024, to June 3, 2024.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control Approval for a proposed 49-storey mixed-use building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 19-day video hearing to commence in October 2024.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.