A. Sauve

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval to permit a mixed-use development.

Following a settlement between the parties, the proposal was revised to include a 58-storey building and a 12-storey building, addressing concerns regarding height, massing, and heritage conservation.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle and withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding three related appeals concerning commercial and residential developments in the City of Owen Sound.

The appeals involved two zoning by-law amendments to permit mixed-use and commercial buildings, including a grocery store, and a consent application for an access easement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposals consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement agreements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances for the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Cognashene Cottagers Association on consent.

A Procedural Order was approved and a two-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by two appellants against the Municipality of Thames Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 27.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a representative of an abutting landowner.

The Tribunal noted a settlement in principle with one appellant and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing for the remaining appeal in February 2025.

The appellants appealed the Township of West Lincoln's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 63, which implements a Secondary Plan for lands added to the Smithville Urban Area.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resolving numerous issues.

The Township brought a motion to approve the partial settlement, supported by uncontested expert planning affidavit evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the modified OPA 63 save for scoped site-specific policies, and scheduled a merit hearing for the remaining issues.

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 5 metres to 1.83 metres to permit the construction of an open louvered pergola.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor in nature, and was desirable for the appropriate use of the land.

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

At a Case Management Conference concerning appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 144-2021, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacating the August 2024 hearing dates and scheduling a further Case Management Conference.

The appellant brought a motion to determine whether its proposed redevelopment of a former golf course into a 44-lot residential subdivision is located within a 'Settlement Area' under the Growth Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, and the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan.

The City argued that the lands were not delineated as a Settlement Area in its Official Plan and therefore did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal found that the definition of 'Settlement Area' should be read disjunctively, and that the subject property qualifies as a Rural Settlement because it is a built-up area where development is concentrated, has a mix of land uses, and is identified in the Official Plan.

The motion was granted, and the issue was removed from the Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Chilocco Building Corporation and Mattamy (Monarch) Partnership due to the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a low-rise residential neighbourhood with condominium elements.

During the conference, the Tribunal granted Party status to Brimley Properties Ltd., an adjacent industrial landowner.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue discussions and finalize a draft Procedural Order.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a proposed plan of subdivision, the Tribunal addressed competing motions from the appellant and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ).

MBQ raised a jurisdictional challenge based on an ongoing federal land claim encompassing the subject property.

The Tribunal converted the scheduled motion date to a CMC and ordered that MBQ's jurisdictional motion be heard first, as it forms the foundation of the appeal, with the appellant's motion to be scheduled subsequently.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent application to sever a parcel of prime agricultural land, seeking to amend or remove conditions related to well setbacks and water testing.

The applicant argued the boundary adjustment was necessary to meet a 15-metre setback from agricultural contaminants.

The Tribunal accepted the County's expert planning evidence that without proven contamination, expanding the setback was not a verifiable technical justification under the Provincial Policy Statement, whereas correcting existing zoning deficiencies was.

The appeal was dismissed and the original conditions were upheld.

The County of Oxford appealed a decision of the Land Division Committee approving a consent to sever agricultural lands to facilitate a farm consolidation and retain a lot with an existing dwelling for non-farm rural residential purposes.

The Applicants argued the proposal was a boundary adjustment and that the appeal was filed late.

The Tribunal found the appeal was filed in time.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the County, the Tribunal held that the proposed severance did not conform to the County Official Plan, which prohibits retaining a surplus dwelling resulting from a farm consolidation if it was constructed after December 13, 1995.

The appeal was allowed and the consent was not given.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the respondent's failure to decide on concurrent applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application.

The applications seek to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building with 33 residential units.

The parties indicated a settlement is likely and requested a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing for July 26, 2024, and ordered the submission of a draft Procedural Order by July 19, 2024, in the event a settlement is not reached.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the building height to 14 storeys and removed balconies to address compatibility concerns.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

The appellant appealed a non-decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding 11 minor variances required to facilitate a six-storey mixed-use building at 8 De Grassi Street.

The proposed development includes 15 residential units and a commercial unit at grade, located near a planned subway station.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances meet the four tests under the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policies promoting transit-supportive intensification.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to a condition regarding street tree planting.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Bradley & Company Inc. against the Township of Wellesley's decision on a Zoning By-Law Amendment application.

The amendment seeks to permit a 12-unit stacked townhouse development.

The Tribunal clarified that the appeal falls under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, approved the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a three-day merit hearing to commence on October 2, 2024.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a proposed redevelopment at 251-285 The West Mall.

The Tribunal heard requests for party and participant status from several residents.

Party status requests were either denied or rescinded, and participant status was granted on consent to multiple individuals.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a nine-day merit hearing to commence in March 2025.

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a three-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances included a reduced rear yard setback, increased balcony projection, increased rooftop access area, and increased building height.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence that the variances, particularly the height increase needed for a gravity flow sanitary sewer, met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and authorized the variances, finding they represented good land use planning and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines following an explosion and fire at the appellants' property that allegedly resulted in a spill of 11.5 million litres of contaminated douse water.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Director of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 14-day Merit Hearing.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a second storey and ground floor addition to their detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented revised variances with reduced massing and setbacks.

The Tribunal found the amended application minor, requiring no further notice.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and authorized the revised variances subject to conditions, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act.