A. Sauve

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application and the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for wetland relocation.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a revised draft plan for an industrial business park that protects and enhances natural heritage features, including expanding and partially relocating an existing wetland.

Based on uncontested expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies, addressed participant concerns, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the construction of a self-use one-storey accessory recreational building for indoor sports.

The requested variances sought relief for maximum accessory building height and maximum lot coverage.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances satisfied the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Michael Bice against the Township of Georgian Bay's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a backlot residential development.

The Township did not attend.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring resident, Peter Solala, and scheduled a two-day merit hearing for September 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Indwell Community Homes against the City of Sarnia's refusal of a minor variance application for a 5-storey affordable housing apartment building.

The Tribunal granted party status to GA Farag Properties Ltd. and Richard Chumko, and participant status to numerous individuals and organizations.

A second Case Management Conference and a four-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and an official plan amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested on consent that the two appeals be consolidated.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation request, finding it would lead to better efficiencies and avoid predetermination of issues.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 15-day hearing.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted a request on consent to consolidate the appeals, finding it would lead to better efficiencies as the matters relate to the same property and proposal.

The Tribunal also approved a draft Procedural Order to govern the 15-day hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment applications.

The municipality did not attend.

A neighbour requested party status on behalf of himself and others.

The Tribunal adjourned the party status request to a second CMC to allow the neighbour to consider retaining counsel or a professional planner.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a commercial garage.

The municipality appeared through an employee and advised it would be retaining counsel.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the CMC to allow the municipality to retain counsel and scheduled a second CMC for June 11, 2026.

The appellant appealed the Township's denial of a minor variance required to permit residential development on a lot that fronts an unassumed public road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variance.

At the first Case Management Conference for an appeal concerning a proposed mixed-use development, the Tribunal scheduled a written motion to determine the party status of the Beamsville Bench Winery Association.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals but denied it to a fourth due to lack of direct impact.

A nine-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in October 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for an appeal under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act regarding a zoning by-law amendment for properties on Yonge Street and Averill Crescent in Toronto.

The order sets the hearing date for January 22, 2026, establishes the issues list, and outlines the deadlines for the exchange of witness lists, participant statements, and visual evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 5799 Yonge Street Limited Partnership against the City of Toronto's approval of a modified Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing for January 2026 and directed the parties to submit a Procedural Order and Issues List at least 30 days prior to the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to replace an existing seasonal cottage with a four-season cottage.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the amendment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposed development represents good land use planning, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and consent to sever a property into three lots.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to another neighbour on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the appeals, finding they contain common facts and concern the same subject land.

A procedural order was issued and a five-day video hearing was scheduled.

The Town of Midland brought a motion on consent for the production of confidential noise impact analysis documents from ADM Agri-Industries Company, related to ADM's appeal of the Town's Official Plan.

ADM agreed to produce the documents but required a confidentiality order to protect its business interests.

The Tribunal found that the Town satisfied the requirements for discovery under OLT Rule 9.1.

Because the documents were not being filed with the Tribunal, OLT Rule 22.2 for confidentiality did not apply.

Instead, the Tribunal used OLT Rule 1.4 to adopt the deemed undertaking provisions of Rule 30.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, granting the motion and issuing the requested confidentiality order.

The appellant appealed the township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

Prior to the scheduled merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement in principle.

The Tribunal converted the merit hearing to a status hearing and scheduled a written settlement hearing.

The Tribunal also directed that a participant's document be included in their participant statement and that an addendum to a witness statement be removed from the record on consent.

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application and two minor variance applications intended to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development represents appropriate gentle intensification, is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, and satisfies the criteria under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting the provisional consent and authorizing the minor variances subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit a rear addition containing two suites to an existing heritage dwelling.

The proposed variances were for building depth and rear yard setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, represented gentle intensification, and was designed to protect the heritage integrity of the main residence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's expert witnesses over the respondent's experts, noting that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the development of an eight-unit, low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions to lot width, lot area, and interior side yard setbacks.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the uncontested appeal, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and meets the four tests for minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to reduce the minimum front yard depth from 8.0 metres to 3.7 metres.

The variance was sought to permit the construction of an enclosed outdoor patio for an existing restaurant.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the enclosure would improve the site, reduce noise, and meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.