Hugh S. Wilkins

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an updated Procedural Order, as agreed to between the parties, to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 13-day hearing scheduled to commence on July 2, 2025.

The appeals relate to applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to facilitate a 36-storey mixed-use residential building in the City of Markham.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning a proposed residential redevelopment and the demolition of a heritage building in the Municipality of Clarington.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order and scheduled a two-phase merit hearing to commence in June and December 2025.

The parties requested on consent to amend some of the procedural timelines contained in a previously issued Procedural Order regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and issued an amended Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding leading up to the hearing scheduled for February 2026.

The applicant requested a three-year extension to the lapsing date for a draft plan of subdivision approval.

With the consent of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, extending the lapsing date to June 10, 2028.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal or neglect to make a decision on an application to amend the zoning by-law.

Following a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order.

The parties subsequently requested, on consent, to amend the procedural timelines.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline to exchange the Joint Document Book.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Tyrolean Village Resorts 2021 Limited concerning the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered amendments to the procedural order to extend the deadlines for exchanging witness statements and reply witness statements.

The appellant appealed under s. 69(3) of the Planning Act seeking a reduction in application fees paid for a draft Plan of Subdivision.

The appellant paid over $3.2 million in fees between 2016 and 2024 and sought a refund of approximately $1.5 million, arguing the fees exceeded the municipality's anticipated costs.

The Tribunal found that the Engineering Review Fee was unreasonably based on an outdated, higher construction cost estimate and ordered a refund of $638,668.56.

The Tribunal also ordered a refund of $113,991.10 for Landscape Review Fees that were improperly charged under the 2024 Tariff.

However, the Tribunal found the remaining residual fees were reasonable and connected to the municipality's costs for processing the complex application.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use, the Town of Lincoln requested and was granted party status without opposition.

The parties subsequently informed the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing and directed the filing of supporting materials.

At a status update teleconference, the appellants requested that Amskor Corporation be removed as a party or downgraded to a participant due to its failure to produce witness statements by the agreed-upon deadline.

Amskor explained the delay was caused by a death in the owner's family.

The Tribunal found it fair and practical to extend the deadline for Amskor's witness statements and issued an order accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development.

Following a settlement hearing in writing, the Tribunal issued an interim decision withholding its final order until certain conditions were met.

Upon confirmation from the City that the conditions were satisfied, the Tribunal issued its final order allowing the appeals and amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Grassy Narrows First Nation applied for leave to appeal a decision by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to issue a Permit to Take Water to Great Bear Resources Ltd. for an advanced exploration gold mining program.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant met the standing requirements under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Applying the leave to appeal test, the Tribunal concluded there was good reason to believe no reasonable person could have issued the Permit, as the Director failed to properly apply the precautionary principle, consider cumulative effects, and adopt an ecosystem approach in light of scientific uncertainty regarding mercury methylation and contaminant release.

The Tribunal also found that the decision could result in significant harm to the environment.

Leave to appeal was granted.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order, an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), and a Notice of Suspension of the Amended ECA regarding its facility in Sarnia.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellant indicated its intention to withdraw all appeals except for one item in the Amended ECA relating to the cessation of accepting and storing benzene.

The Tribunal ordered the proceedings closed and discontinued for the withdrawn appeals and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the remaining issue.

The appellants appealed a cost recovery order issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks following an explosion and fire at a hazardous waste processing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a proposed settlement reducing the payable amount from $133,097.14 to $100,000, removing the individual directors from the order, and requiring a site closure plan.

The City of St. Catharines sought Party status but was granted Participant status to make oral submissions.

The Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with the Environmental Protection Act and in the public interest, as it ensured recovery of reasonable costs and provided for the prompt closure and remediation of the site.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

Shoal Bayly brought a motion to add an issue to the Issues List regarding the funding of a specific road and bridge project through the Region's development charges.

The Region and other appellants had already reached a settlement on the existing issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed issue was distinct, should have been raised earlier, and was more appropriately addressed in separate ongoing proceedings regarding Shoal Bayly's draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal then approved the uncontested settlement, finding the proposed changes to the Development Charge By-law to be fair, reasonable, and in compliance with the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision and order dated January 15, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the end date of the merit hearing from Friday, June 24, 2025, to Friday, June 20, 2025.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal referred by the Ministry of Natural Resources relating to an application for a Class A aggregate license for a proposed pit.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a nine-day merit hearing, and encouraged the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

The appellants appealed the conditions attached to a provisional consent granted by the County of Hastings for a lot addition intended to resolve access and encroachment issues for a neighbouring property.

The appellants contested conditions requiring a detailed plot plan of the neighbouring lands and the dedication of portions of their retained lands to the municipality for road widening and a turnaround.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the consent itself represented good planning, the disputed conditions were not reasonable, necessary, or equitable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act, as they would require actions on lands not owned by the appellants and disproportionately burden them with road dedication.

The Municipality brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a use is a legal non-conforming use under s. 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act, seeking to strike evidence and adjourn the appeal pending a Superior Court declaration.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it has both the authority and duty to make such determinations as questions of fact.

The Tribunal also granted the appellant's motion to consolidate the appeals regarding the zoning by-law amendment, site plan approval, and s. 45(2) application, finding consolidation would allow for a fair, just, and expeditious hearing.

The Tribunal held a status update teleconference regarding appeals related to a proposed biosolid storage facility.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate the proceedings, while the municipality indicated its intent to bring a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction over certain legal non-conforming use issues.

The Tribunal scheduled the motions to be heard at an upcoming Case Management Conference and adjourned the hearing on the merits to January 2025.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of an excavator from a flood plain and related environmental remediation.

Following several case management conferences, the excavator was successfully extracted and all requirements of the Director's Order were satisfied.

The appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.

The Tribunal found it in the public interest to dismiss the proceeding and close the file.