Hugh S. Wilkins

At a case management conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to decide on an Official Plan Amendment for a settlement area boundary expansion, a party brought a motion raising constitutional issues regarding the duty to consult under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the party, not being an Indigenous community or authorized representative, lacked standing to assert a breach of the duty to consult.

The Tribunal also declined to order independent technical studies or adjourn the proceeding.

The Tribunal finalized the issues list, allowing an issue regarding consistency with PPS policy 6.1.2 but striking an issue regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of a waste stockpile from a property and brought motions for a stay of the Order pending the disposition of the appeal.

The parties reached an agreement on granting partial stays.

The Tribunal found no statutory bars to granting the stays under the Environmental Protection Act and concluded that the serious issue, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience tests were satisfied.

The Tribunal granted the partial stays on consent, extending the compliance dates for various work items.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and a demolition permit to allow a 5-storey mixed-use development in the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development represents appropriate intensification, is consistent with provincial and municipal policies, and respects the heritage character of the area.

The appeals were allowed in part and the instruments approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application to expand an existing retreat use.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants formally withdrew their appeals.

Pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals and deemed the Commission's decision confirmed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Niagara Escarpment Commission development permit approval, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the Appellants' revised Issues List and the Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing on the merits for June 2026 and directed the parties to initiate the process of summoning their intended witnesses.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an order by the Deputy Registrar of the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority.

The Appellant requested time to finalize a retainer with a Producer Responsibility Organization to comply with the order.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 17, 2026, to allow the Appellant to achieve compliance.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions but had not finalized an agreement.

The Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing for August 10, 2026, directing that if a settlement is not reached by then, the hearing will be converted to a Case Management Conference to set dates for a hearing on the merits.

The applicants brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals of a development permit approval for the expansion of an existing retreat use on the subject property.

The applicants argued that the appeals lacked genuine planning issues, constituted an abuse of process by re-litigating previously resolved issues, and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Hearing Officer denied the motion, finding that the appeals raised legitimate planning questions regarding whether the proposed expansion complied with the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officer concluded that the appeals disclosed a planning justification, were not frivolous or vexatious, and did not constitute an abuse of process, as the issue of expanding the existing use had not been previously adjudicated.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including the hearing of an appeal by Minto Communities Inc. regarding the City of Ottawa's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing July 13, 2026.

The Township of Adelaide Metcalfe applied for leave to appeal the MECP Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for stormwater management works at a proposed fertilizer storage facility.

The Township raised concerns about the risk of spontaneous combustion of fertilizer pellets and the potential for fire-fighting water run-off to overflow the stormwater ponds and contaminate the local watershed.

The Tribunal found that the Township had standing to appeal but failed to satisfy the two-part test for leave under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the stormwater ponds were appropriately sized to contain worst-case storm events and fire-fighting run-off, and that the decision was reasonable and would not result in significant environmental harm.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural timelines leading up to a hearing scheduled for April 2026 regarding a zoning by-law amendment application.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and issued an amended procedural order revising the dates for witness statements, visual evidence, and the hearing itself.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit application.

The Hearing Officer reviewed the parties' draft issues lists and directed them to revise the lists to ensure the issues are within the Tribunal's jurisdiction and relevant to the appeal.

The parties were given time to retain counsel, consult, and file a finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions and the development of a concrete management plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for April 8, 2026, to either schedule hearing dates or consider a proposed settlement.

The appellant appealed the Hamilton Conservation Authority's failure to make a decision regarding a conservation permit application.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that the Niagara Escarpment Commission had issued a required development permit and the Conservation Authority had agreed to issue the conservation permit.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow time for the permit to be issued and conditions reviewed, and released the previously scheduled merit hearing dates.

The appellant appealed the City of London's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey, 10-unit apartment building on a property adjacent to an environmentally significant area.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included rezoning a portion of the property as open space to act as a buffer, transferring it to the City, and implementing an environmental management plan.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, allowing the appeal in part to approve the amended by-law.

The appellant brought a motion for a stay of Condition 5.4 of an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding the decommissioning of a former uranium mine.

The parties reached a proposed resolution to stay the condition, subject to alternative monitoring and reporting requirements.

The Tribunal found that the statutory tests for a stay under the Environmental Protection Act were met, as the proposed stay would not hinder monitoring, cause danger to human health, or impair the environment.

The Tribunal granted the stay on consent and scheduled a Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the North Almaguin Planning Board's refusal of applications for Provisional Consents to sever a property containing two cottages into two separate lots and to create an easement for driveway access.

The parties reached a settlement requiring the installation of new private sanitary sewage systems.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed consents were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and had regard to the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the provisional consents were granted subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 3,034-unit mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, resolving all issues including concerns from an adjacent property owner regarding stormwater overflows.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending satisfaction of specified conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and issued a Procedural Order governing the hearing for a mixed-use development application.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered amendments to some of the procedural timelines contained in the Procedural Order.

The Regional Municipality of Halton sought to expropriate portions of the requestors' property to facilitate the widening of Ninth Line and the construction of a new bridge.

The requestors, who experience pre-existing flooding on their property, argued that the bridge design should be altered to mitigate the flooding or that the Region should expropriate the flood-prone lands entirely.

The Tribunal accepted the Region's expert evidence that the proposed takings are minimal, necessary for the project, and will not exacerbate existing flooding.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed expropriation is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the Region's objectives.