Hugh S. Wilkins

The appellants appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a secondary dwelling unit on a lot with an area of 353.56 square metres, where 450 square metres is required.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence from a City planner appearing as a Friend of the Tribunal, who opined that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding it consistent with provincial policy and good planning.

The appellants appealed the City of Thorold's refusal of their applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws to permit a hockey training facility in an existing accessory building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

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

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Township of Carlow/Mayo that authorized setbacks for existing buildings near Environmental Protection zones and waterbodies.

Prior to the hearing, the Freeman appellants and the Township reached a proposed settlement to repeal the amendment, which the Chadband appellants did not join but whose outcome they supported.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, found that the amendment was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the County Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, allowed the appeals, and repealed the zoning by-law amendment.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Director's Order requiring it to investigate and clean up street sweepings deposited at various sites.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the City completed sampling and assessment demonstrating the sweepings posed no unacceptable risk, and the site owners consented to leaving the materials in place.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and the public interest, approved the withdrawal of the appeal, and revoked the Director's Order.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring the preparation and implementation of a closure plan for the Margach Waste Disposal Site and the provision of financial assurance.

The parties reached a settlement in principle and requested a settlement hearing.

The settlement provided an 18-month period to facilitate the sale of the site to a potential purchaser, during which the appellants would continue maintenance and monitoring.

If sold, the purchaser would assume responsibility and provide financial assurance; if not, the appellants would implement a closure plan.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, directed the Director to revoke the Order, and dismissed the proceedings.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring maintenance, monitoring, and financial assurance for a closed waste disposal site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement involving a comprehensive work plan, increased financial assurance of $1,000,000, and the release of former corporate directors from liability.

The Tribunal found the settlement satisfied the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the revocation of the Director's Order and dismissed the proceedings.

The Appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit warehouse distribution and office uses.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the zoning by-law amendment for the Phase 2 lands.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed zoning by-law amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning by-law amendment appeal in part to approve the settlement and dismissed the official plan amendment appeal at the Appellant's request.

The City of Brampton brought a motion on consent seeking modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105 (OPA No. 105) regarding the Highway 427 Industrial Secondary Plan Area.

The City sought to modify the boundaries of the natural heritage system in the Rainbow Creek corridor to align with the Rainbow Creek Master Environmental Servicing Plan Addendum, and to approve OPA No. 105 for specific lands.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and having regard to matters of provincial interest.

The Tribunal granted the motion and scheduled a Case Management Conference for remaining appeals.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan approval application.

At a case management conference, the parties reported optimism regarding settlement discussions and requested more time.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference to receive an update on settlement and to consider a draft procedural order.

During a Case Management Conference for an appeal of Environmental Penalty Orders regarding sulphur dioxide emissions from a refinery, Aamjiwnaang First Nation, Vanessa Gray, and Arnold Norman Yellowman requested Party status.

The Tribunal granted their requests, finding that their interests may be directly and substantially affected by the hearing, they have a genuine interest in the subject matter, and their presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely.

The Tribunal also approved the Issues List and Procedural Order.

The claimants brought a motion for a Procedural Order requiring the disclosure of a business loss report by the respondents and the scheduling of examinations for discovery in an expropriation proceeding.

During the Case Management Conference, the parties settled the motion and agreed to hearing dates.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled an eight-day hearing for September 2022, along with a further Case Management Conference for March 2022.

The instrument holder brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a Permit to Take Water issued by the Director, which had been appealed by the appellants.

The parties reached a proposed settlement to lift the stay subject to conditions regarding sump pond water levels, berm inspections, water quality monitoring, and well sampling for residents.

The Tribunal found that the proposed conditions addressed the public interest considerations under s. 102(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act and would not result in danger to health, impairment of waters, or injury to property or the environment.

The motion to lift the automatic stay was granted on consent, subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and passage of a Zoning By-law Amendment, the Tribunal was informed of a proposed settlement between the applicant and the City.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC to allow other parties to review the settlement and granted participant status to nine individuals who raised concerns about height, traffic, greenspace, parking, and compatibility.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton advised that it is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review that may result in an urban boundary expansion, potentially resolving many appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 4, 2021, to allow time for the City to provide direction on the boundary expansion and for the parties to prepare an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Greater Sudbury's refusal of a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a shared-housing facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals, approved the Issues List and Procedural Order, and scheduled a one-day video hearing for October 2021.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an amended Environmental Compliance Approval permitting a cement manufacturing facility to increase its use of alternative low-carbon fuels from 96 to 400 tonnes per day.

The applicants argued the decision was unreasonable because it failed to impose stringent emissions standards, lacked comprehensive ambient air monitoring, and failed to properly consider the Ministry's Statement of Environmental Values, including the precautionary principle and cumulative effects.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications, finding the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case that the Director's decision was unreasonable.

The evidence demonstrated the Director relied on comprehensive scientific studies showing the expanded use of alternative fuels would not result in significant cumulative air quality impacts and would comply with applicable provincial air standards.

The appellant appealed conditions of an amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding odour limits at its rendering plant.

The parties could not agree on the wording of certain issues for the Issues List.

The Tribunal adopted the Director's proposed wording for three issues and revised a fourth, finding that the issues must focus on the specific facility and approval rather than general scientific declarations.

The Tribunal also granted a consent request to extend the compliance deadline for odour limits to October 1, 2022, given the hearing schedule.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment regulating short-term rental accommodations.

The Tribunal addressed the settlement of a motion for the production of documents, finalized the Issues List and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a seven-day hearing for March 2022.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed 9-storey mixed-use building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to several community groups and individuals without objection.

The parties noted potential forthcoming appeals regarding heritage designation of the subject properties and agreed to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List for the next CMC, scheduled for October 2021, to explore settlement opportunities.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and its neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a proposed 9-storey mixed-use development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference where the parties presented a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing for January 2022.