Blair S. Taylor

The City of Windsor brought a motion for security for costs in the amount of $100,000 against the claimant, whose leasehold interest was expropriated in 1999.

The City argued the claimant was an inactive corporation with insufficient assets to pay a potential costs award.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claimant had a prima facie case supported by three expert reports (including one from the City's own expert) indicating a leasehold advantage.

The Tribunal also found that the City's delay in bringing the motion until shortly before the hearing was prejudicial to the claimant, and that ordering security for costs could unjustly prevent a meritorious claim from proceeding.

The appellant appealed a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent application intended to facilitate the development of a long-term care facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and entered into multiple agreements.

The appellant withdrew its appeal against the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the parties jointly recommended a revised condition of consent.

Relying on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the consent satisfied all statutory criteria, allowed the consent appeal in part, and authorized the provisional consent subject to the amended condition.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development charge of $924,705.00 for a self-storage facility.

The parties narrowed the issue to whether a self-storage facility is an 'industrial development' under the City's Development Charges By-law.

The Tribunal issued directions for the filing of written submissions and scheduled a one-day video hearing for oral submissions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a 2017 expropriation of part of the claimants' lands for the realignment of Highway 6.

The claimants sought the Ministry's final design plans and the scheduling of a second CMC.

The Ministry indicated it was awaiting reports from its planner and appraiser.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for February 22, 2022, and directed the Ministry to provide status updates on the final design plans, construction schedule, and expert reports.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Optilinx Systems Inc. concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a contractor's yard and outdoor storage in Whitby.

Due to an outstanding Provincial Offences prosecution, Tribunal-led mediation was deemed inappropriate.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day video hearing and directed the parties to consolidate their issues and submit a revised Procedural Order.

The claimant sought compensation for a partial taking of land.

Following a settlement offer from the Ministry, the parties requested more time for the claimant's consultants to review the offer and provide reports.

The Tribunal cancelled the scheduled 10-day hearing and set a further Case Management Conference to receive a status update on the settlement negotiations.

The Ministry of Transportation applied to the Ontario Land Tribunal for approval to close portions of six municipal roads to facilitate the replacement of an existing cloverleaf interchange at Highway 401 and Highway 4 with a new Parclo A-4 design.

The application was opposed by the owners of adjacent commercial properties, who argued that the closure and realignment of Burtwistle Lane would negatively impact their stormwater pond and potentially landlock their properties.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the Ministry's highway design engineer that the existing interchange was deficient and the proposed realignment would significantly improve driver safety.

Finding that public safety must prevail over the convenience of private property owners, the Tribunal approved the road closings.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-laws.

The parties advised that Tribunal-led mediation had resulted in an agreement in principle for the McMaster University appeals.

The Tribunal consolidated the McMaster appeals and scheduled a potential settlement hearing.

The Tribunal also heard updates regarding the West End Home Builders' Association and 2362302 Ontario Inc. appeals, noting significant progress, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow discussions to continue.

The applicant appealed the County of Norfolk's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 36 stacked townhouses.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement to allow 12 stacked townhouse units along with heritage and landscape protections.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal represented good planning, conformed to the Official Plan, and had due regard for matters of Provincial Interest.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised Zoning By-law Amendment was approved.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment in the Town of Halton Hills.

The parties advised they would engage in private mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion for party status brought by two landowner groups and set a third Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicants appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on site plan and zoning applications for a high-density residential development in the Downtown Core Area.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving site-specific modifications to the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, finding the settlement consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Ottawa's Development Charges By-laws.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of two appeals, that six matters remained under active discussion, and that one matter (Chapman Mills) required a hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing for the Chapman Mills appeal and set a fourth Case Management Conference for the remaining matters.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment and a consent application, the Tribunal found the City's public notice to be defective.

On consent of the parties, who were engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals, abridged the time for service of a new notice, and scheduled a new Case Management Conference.

At a Case Management Conference for a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, the Tribunal addressed delays in the production of the respondent's expert report due to medical circumstances and a change in counsel.

The Tribunal directed the respondent to produce its expert report by a specified date and allowed the claimant time to reply.

Both parties requested Tribunal-led mediation, which the Tribunal recommended.

The Tribunal declined the claimant's request to schedule an 8-day hearing, finding that a 4- or 5-day hearing would likely be sufficient given the anticipated number of witnesses.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order partially approving the Town of Midland Official Plan, as modified by the County of Simcoe.

The approval was subject to modifications of specific policies and excluded certain policies and schedules that remained under appeal on a site-specific or area-specific basis.

The Tribunal retained jurisdiction to consider further modifications to resolve outstanding appeals.

Beachside Development Inc. brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Manning Developments Inc. regarding a zoning by-law amendment approved by the Municipality of Lakeshore.

Manning's appeal was based on the Municipality's differing treatment of servicing allocation between Beachside's lands and Manning's adjacent lands.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that municipal servicing allocation is outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, meaning the appeal disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal also found the appeal was brought for the purpose of delay.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act regarding the Township of Muskoka Lakes' refusal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The applicant sought the amendment to permit a dock that was not built in compliance with the existing by-law.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the parties and participants.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding an Official Plan Amendment, the parties provided a status update indicating that a servicing issue had been resolved and a Zoning By-law Amendment application would be resubmitted.

The Tribunal scheduled a further hearing date for April 2022.

Additionally, the Tribunal dismissed an oral motion by the Brownridge Ratepayers Association to reinstate its party status, finding the request was made without notice, years after the status was revoked, and would be highly prejudicial to the parties' ongoing settlement discussions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Whitby's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and the Regional Municipality of Durham's failure to make a decision on a Regional Official Plan Amendment within the statutory timeframe.

The applications sought to permit an existing contractor's yard with outdoor storage and associated buildings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, noting that the parties should have sought instructions on these matters prior to the hearing.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 20-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 21-storey building, which was endorsed by City Council.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested land use planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the site plan is finalized.