A. Snowdon

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot into two and reduce the minimum lot width from 18.0 metres to 15.2 metres.

The Tribunal heard unopposed expert planning evidence that the proposed lots would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and represent appropriate residential intensification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a consultant and apply for an Environmental Compliance Approval to address failing illegal sewage systems at their motel and trailer park.

The appellants argued that the sole director of the corporate owner should be removed from the order and cited financial hardship.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the sole director had management and control of the site, financial hardship was not grounds to remove a person from a control document, and the appellants were operating illegal failing sewage systems in violation of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The moving parties requested directions from the Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its previous decision dated July 30, 2024, pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The amendments corrected the title of proceedings, updated the appearances list to include co-counsel, and removed a paragraph reminding the parties of a status update deadline.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals with related files, granted party status to a ratepayers association while denying redundant individual requests, and scheduled a seven-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the Municipality of Shuniah's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Thunder Bay due to potential impacts on the City's water supply.

The parties were directed to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellant appealed an Environmental Penalty Order issued by the Director of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for total reduced sulphur discharge exceedances.

The Ministry subsequently conceded that it lacked the legal authority to issue the order, as the specific contraventions were not prescribed in the applicable regulations for environmental penalties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and revoked the order on consent, finding the revocation to be in the public interest.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry referred an application by Gerry Crepin Cartage Limited for a Class A License to operate an aggregate pit, along with several objections, to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal confirmed the party status of the objectors, noted their concerns regarding environmental impacts, traffic, and noise, and directed the applicant to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula and Bruce Anchor Cruises brought motions to dismiss an appeal by The Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee against a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted commercial tour boat operations in a commercial zone.

The moving parties argued the notice of appeal failed to adequately explain how the by-law was inconsistent with provincial policies or official plans under s. 34(19.0.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding the notice of appeal and accompanying materials raised authentic land use planning issues worthy of adjudication, including traffic, parking, and land use compatibility.

A motion to alter the issues list was also denied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Grmada Holdings Inc. from the City of Markham's failure to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and participant status to one residents' group, while denying other participant requests due to non-appearance.

The Tribunal also resolved a dispute over the wording of the Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing for May 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a partially enclosed carport addition with a reduced interior side yard setback and zero distance from the principal building.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the revised proposal, which corrected the carport height to 12 feet and increased the side yard setback to 0.85 metres, satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the modified variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Town of Fort Erie's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to facilitate the creation of two new residential lots.

The parties indicated they were engaging in private settlement discussions and requested additional time.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 3, 2024, and directed the parties to provide a Draft Procedural Order or status update by September 23, 2024.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to pass a designation by-law for a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties indicated they were engaging in private settlement discussions and that a separate development application was being considered concurrently.

The parties jointly requested a second Case Management Conference to allow time for resolution or to identify pertinent issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, scheduled a second Case Management Conference, and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order or status update prior to the next hearing.

The applicant appealed the amount of cash in-lieu of parkland required by the Town of Halton Hills for a 31-unit residential subdivision.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant advised it was obtaining a second appraisal of the subject property.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a three-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a commercial dog kennel on the neighbouring property.

The core issue was whether the noise from the kennel would adversely impact the enjoyment of the appellant's property.

The Tribunal preferred the applicants' expert noise evidence, finding that proposed mitigation measures implemented through site plan control would adequately address noise concerns.

The Tribunal concluded the amendment was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the official plans, dismissing the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by INEOS Styrolution Canada Ltd. against a Director's Order and the suspension of its Environmental Compliance Approval related to benzene emissions.

The Aamjiwnaang First Nation requested and was granted party status without objection, given its direct interest and the health impacts experienced by its members.

The Tribunal also set dates for the first Case Management Conference and a two-day stay motion, and established a schedule for the exchange of motion materials.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment and an official plan amendment, a motion for document production was adjourned.

The parties agreed to a pathway forward wherein the moving party would revise its document request and the responding parties would provide lists of relevant documents.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize issues lists and restructure the order of the merit hearings.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop a work plan to remove underground fuel tanks and delineate soil and groundwater contamination at a former retail fuel outlet they purchased at a municipal tax sale.

The appellants argued the Ministry should have pursued the former owner's estate or the adjoining property owner.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants were the current owners and managers of the site, and the uncontradicted expert evidence established that the order was necessary and advisable to protect the environment from petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants.

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

The Tribunal granted participant status to a yacht club and four individuals on consent.

The parties agreed to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List by June 14, 2024, and a three-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on September 25, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Westchester Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications for 33 Walsh Avenue.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority on consent.

A request for party status by a local resident was denied, with the Tribunal noting his concerns were covered by the City's issues list and he would remain a participant.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 13-day merit hearing for February 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a minor variance to allow a Transitional Housing use on a property zoned for detached dwellings.

The appellant intended to operate a Group Home, which is permitted as of right, but the City advised the proposed use was Transitional Housing.

At the hearing, the City supported the application.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variance.