Hugh S. Wilkins

The Appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 27-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development conforms with the City's 2008 Official Plan, the Growth Plan, and the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal held that the proposed height, massing, and urban design were appropriate for the downtown context and provided adequate transition.

The Tribunal also found the proposed parking supply and shadow impacts to be acceptable.

The appeal was allowed in principle, subject to conditions including a holding symbol related to environmental site remediation.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by DVP Hotel Development LP against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment for 175 Wynford Drive.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities and individuals on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for September 7, 2022, and a ten-day hearing was scheduled to commence on April 24, 2023.

During a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105, the Tribunal heard an unopposed motion to substitute Velcor Enterprises Limited as an Appellant in place of Caveze Investments Limited.

Velcor had acquired the lands previously owned by Caveze and intended to rely on the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that Velcor satisfied the legislative tests to be a party and its presence was necessary to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The appellant appealed conditions imposed under an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding its animal by-product processing plant, specifically concerning odour unit limits.

Prior to the scheduled three-week hearing, the parties reached a proposed settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference, vacated the previously set hearing dates, and scheduled a settlement hearing to be held by video.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for the reconstruction of Olde Baseline Road.

The parties indicated they were actively engaged in settlement discussions and anticipated a resolution in the near term.

The Tribunal encouraged the continued discussions and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for late March 2022, directing the parties to report on the status of their settlement efforts prior to the next appearance.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision regarding a site plan approval application.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal heard an unopposed motion to substitute a new corporate entity as the appellant, as it had recently acquired the subject property.

The Tribunal granted the motion under Rule 8.2, finding the new owner's presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the proceeding, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 54-storey residential building.

Adjacent landowners requested status, which the Tribunal deferred to the next CMC pending the provision of draft Issues Lists.

The parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and requested a further CMC in June 2022 to allow City Council to provide instructions.

The Tribunal scheduled the next CMC and directed the filing of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Town of Lakeshore brought a motion seeking an adjournment of a zoning by-law amendment appeal hearing.

The Town argued that a misfeasance claim brought by the appellant against Town Council members created a conflict of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, preventing Council from providing instructions to counsel.

The Town had applied to the Superior Court for a declaration under s. 7(2) of the Act to allow Council to proceed.

The Tribunal found that proceeding with the hearing before the Court ruled on the conflict issue could result in inconsistent decisions and force Council members to potentially contravene the Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit for a parking lot expansion.

After the appellants failed to attend two consecutive Case Management Conferences, the Tribunal converted the second CMC into a hearing on the merits.

However, upon learning the appellants had emergencies preventing their attendance, the Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing on a pre-emptory basis to allow them to present their case.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal to permit the relocation of a wetland, the Ontario Land Tribunal addressed requests for Party and Participant status.

Environmental Defence was granted Party status over the appellant's request for deferral, as it demonstrated a genuine interest and ability to assist the Tribunal.

Twenty-two individuals were granted Participant status without opposition.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the issues list and address the anticipated consolidation with a forthcoming draft plan of subdivision appeal.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Tribunal addressed procedural matters including a request for an updated market study.

The Tribunal declined to order the Applicant to prepare a new market study, instead allowing the Appellant to file evidence on changes in market conditions since 2018.

The Tribunal also confirmed directions for filing evidence on changes to the Provincial Policy Statement and scheduled a one-day video hearing for final oral submissions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision regarding a site plan approval application for a proposed five-storey vehicle sales facility.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed site plan and conditions were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the site plan was approved in principle subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a maximum lot coverage of 40 percent (instead of 33 percent) to facilitate an addition to an existing dwelling.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, relying on uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed with the Growth Plan.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for the re-construction of Olde Baseline Road, the Regional Municipality of Peel requested and was granted Party status on consent.

The Hearing Office directed the parties to refine the issues list and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

A Case Management Conference (CMC) was held regarding appeals of a development permit approval for a parking area expansion.

Neither appellant attended the CMC.

One appellant indicated she would not attend, while the other later reported experiencing technical difficulties.

Due to the technical issues, the Hearing Officer scheduled a further CMC and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a decision by the Provincial Mining Recorder to delete a mining claim from the registry.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a one-day video hearing for July 2022.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against a zoning by-law amendment passed by the municipality.

During the conference, two applicants requested and were granted party status without opposition.

The parties were unable to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, prompting the Tribunal to schedule a further Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal also encouraged the parties to pursue settlement discussions.

The appellants appealed the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission to construct a driveway and single detached dwelling on a vacant lot located in the flood plain of the Rideau River.

The Tribunal found that the subject property constitutes hazardous lands and a floodway, and that the appellants failed to demonstrate the proposed development would have no negative impacts on flood control.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development did not comply with Ontario Regulation 174/06, was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and was not consistent with the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a seven-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

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

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the by-law amendments and required studies.