A. Sauve

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit both a home-based business and an accessory apartment in the main dwelling.

The Town did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that sufficient parking was available and the proposal maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a single-detached dwelling and septic system constructed without a permit within 200 metres of a closed landfill.

The appellant argued that his own water sampling demonstrated the well water was safe.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the municipality's expert witnesses, who testified that the appellant's hydrogeological investigation was insufficient to assess potential future impacts from leachate migration.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate there would be no negative impacts, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City of London's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment for properties at 2598 and 2624 Woodhull Road.

The amendment sought to rezone the lands to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on an existing vacant lot, following a previously approved consent for a lot boundary adjustment.

The City argued that the previous decision created a new lot, which would restrict development to a farm dwelling, and raised ecological concerns regarding the proximity to a significant woodland.

The Tribunal found that the previous decision clearly ordered a lot adjustment, not a new lot.

Relying on the appellant's ecological and planning experts, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed development, with a reduced natural heritage buffer, would have no negative impacts on the woodland.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in the public interest.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a reduced interior side yard setback of 2.0 metres for a proposed single detached dwelling.

The variance was required by the Conservation Authority to maintain a 4.0-metre setback on the other side for shoreline access.

The Tribunal found the uncontested expert planning evidence demonstrated the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential property into two lots.

The proposed lots required relief for minimum lot width and area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the proposal represented compatible residential infill that conformed to the Official Plan and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeals were allowed, the variances authorized, and provisional consent granted.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey residential building.

Following an interim decision approving the instruments in principle, the parties requested a final order for the official plan amendment only, as conditions for the zoning by-law amendment remained outstanding.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, issuing the final order to amend the official plan while withholding the final order for the zoning by-law amendment.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant consents and minor variances to sever a residential property into two lots for the development of two 8-unit low-rise apartment buildings.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate intensification, introduces missing middle housing, and meets the criteria for consent and the four tests for minor variances.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consent and authorizing the variances.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use building with two 45-storey residential towers.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing for May 2026.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Newdev Investments Ltd. and 1375920 Ontario Limited against the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval.

The applications seek to permit the construction of two 3-storey stacked townhouse blocks.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two neighbours and approved the Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 5-day merit hearing scheduled for October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Crown (Bradford) Developments Inc. against the City of Barrie's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use development with two 45-storey residential towers.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and set a deadline for a resident to submit a Participant Status request.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

The subject lands contained a portion of a Provincially Significant Area of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSI).

The municipality brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the features of the ANSI, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the natural features or ecological functions of the ANSI, as the appellant's expert evidence focused exclusively on the subject lands rather than the ANSI as a whole.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of five minor variances required to facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal convert the case management conference into a settlement hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed mixed-use development, a neighbouring industrial company requested party status.

The applicant objected, arguing that a stand-alone motion was required and that the company's involvement would duplicate issues raised by other industrial parties.

The Tribunal found that a stand-alone motion was unnecessary and granted the company party status, noting its unique interests as a neighbouring industry and the need for its presence to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The moving party, affiliated with Langmaids Island Corporation, brought a motion requesting an order that the 'Waterfront Landing' use defined in the Town of Huntsville's Community Planning Permit By-law does not prohibit construction access and commercial barging activities at its property.

The Town argued that the lack of a dedicated loading area prohibited such activities as it would obstruct required parking.

The Tribunal found that a plain reading of the by-law does not prohibit these activities and granted the motion in part.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on consent and minor variance applications to sever a lot containing an existing residential dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal approved the consent subject to conditions and authorized the minor variances, finding they were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for the Centrepoint Mall site, and appeals of the City-initiated Yonge Street North Secondary Plan (OPA 615).

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Vaughan without objection.

The parties agreed to schedule a 10-day merit hearing and submitted a draft Procedural Order, which the Tribunal approved and appended to its decision.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application.

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Vaughan without objection.

The parties agreed to finalize a Procedural Order and schedule a 10-day merit hearing commencing in April 2025.

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

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant and party status to several individuals and entities, deferred one party status request, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 15-day merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's By-law 27-2024, which designated a property as a heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment sine die to allow the City to seek instructions from City Council regarding Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die, noting that the parties will contact the Case Coordinator to initiate mediation and set the next hearing date when necessary.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 53-unit mixed-use development consisting of stacked townhouses and commercial space.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and in compliance with section 41 of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the site plan subject to agreed-upon conditions.