Hugh S. Wilkins

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development permit, official plan amendment, and zoning by-law amendment for a proposed development, a neighbouring property owner requested Party status.

The neighbour argued that the proposed development would impact its own stormwater management plan and developable area.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing it was too late in the process and would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal denied Party status, finding that adding a new Party at this late stage would unfairly prejudice the applicant and that the neighbour's concerns could be adequately addressed through Participant status.

The neighbour was granted Participant status in each of the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by ONE Properties Limited Partnership concerning a draft Plan of Subdivision and a refusal by the Hamilton Conservation Authority to permit the relocation of a wetland for a proposed business park development.

The parties requested an adjournment to allow the appellant to commission a report on the wetland's hydrological features.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2024 and a 15-day hearing commencing in February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2799568 Ontario Inc. against the Township of Selwyn's approval of Zoning By-law No. 2021-066 concerning cannabis land uses.

The Tribunal approved the finalized Issues List and Procedural Order, noted that mediation was not appropriate, and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on May 6, 2024.

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

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions and requested a further CMC to finalize an action plan and settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 2024.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's adoption of a by-law designating the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District.

On consent, the Tribunal approved updates to the procedural order, recognized additional appellants for transition purposes, and extended the due date for the delivery of proposed modifications to the Heritage Conservation District Plan.

Electrolux Home Care Products Canada Inc. brought a motion to be added as a Party to an appeal regarding a Certificate of Property Use issued for a neighbouring property.

Electrolux is a defendant in related civil proceedings concerning historic contamination.

The Director and the City opposed the motion.

The Tribunal found that Electrolux had a genuine interest in the proceeding because the issue of historic contamination was relevant to both the Tribunal appeal and the civil proceedings.

The Tribunal granted Electrolux Party status, limited to providing evidence and submissions on the specific issue of historic contamination, and required it to shelter under the appellants' issue without altering the existing procedural schedule.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment, the Tribunal granted party status to the property owner and a neighbouring developer.

The appellants, who attended with limited-retainer counsel, requested an adjournment to retain specialized municipal counsel and respond to the applicant's motions for summary dismissal.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the appellants of proceeding without proper counsel outweighed any prejudice to the applicant, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to hear the motions and finalize the procedural order.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for a hot-mix asphalt plant to operate in conjunction with an existing quarry.

The Applicant argued the decision was unreasonable because the Director failed to properly consider the Statement of Environmental Values, cumulative effects, common law rights, and applicable guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to demonstrate that no reasonable person could have made the decision, as the Director appropriately considered the relevant studies, policies, and mitigation measures.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for an electrical serviced permanent sign at an elementary school.

Following a second case management conference where settlement discussions failed, the appellant was directed to file an Issues List.

The appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal.

Pursuant to s. 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Commission's decision was deemed confirmed and the file was closed.

The South Bracebridge Environmental Protection Group appealed the Town of Bracebridge's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a private school complex.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the applicable Official Plans, provided that the minimum buffer for wetlands and watercourses is increased from 15m to 30m.

The Tribunal also required the inclusion of a holding symbol that can only be lifted after site-specific environmental impact statements, including comprehensive amphibian and bat surveys, demonstrate no negative impacts on significant wildlife habitat.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement these amendments.

Following settlement hearings and an interim order approving the proposed development in principle, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued its final order.

The Tribunal was advised by the City Solicitor that all pre-requisite conditions had been satisfied.

The Tribunal ordered the approval of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 279-unit, 9-storey mixed-use development on Kingston Road and Birchcliff Avenue in Toronto.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the merits because they had made progress in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to receive updates and potentially schedule a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's approval of zoning by-law amendments facilitating a three-storey, 20-unit stacked townhouse development.

The appellant argued the development's density and floor space ratio exceeded the maximums permitted by the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal found that the density policies were guidelines not meant for individual developments, and that the floor space ratio calculation correctly excluded the below-grade floor.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the development was compatible with the neighbourhood, consistent with provincial policies, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Agnew Lake Property Group requested costs of $27,215.37 against the appellants after their appeals of a zoning by-law amendment were dismissed.

The Property Group argued the appeals were frivolous, vexatious, and without merit.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that while the appeals lacked land use planning grounds, the appellants' conduct during the proceeding was not unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious, and they did not act in bad faith.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2697331 Ontario Inc. against the Town of Aurora's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a residential development.

The Tribunal received status updates, noting an ongoing Town study and interim control by-law affecting the area.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, subject to potential future amendments, and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for December 2023.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a large accessory structure on the applicant's property.

The Hearing Officer found that the originally proposed 1,263.7 square metre structure was not compatible with the open landscape character of the Escarpment Rural Area.

However, the applicant offered to reduce the structure's size to 900 square metres and its height to 11 metres.

The Hearing Officer recommended approval of the revised proposal, finding it would blend in with the environment and be consistent with provincial policies.

The Minister of Natural Resources adopted the recommendation and approved the varied development permit.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an interim stay of a Director's Order requiring it to undertake actions to address contamination on its property.

The parties agreed to stay several items, but disputed whether Items 8 and 9, which required a Groundwater Monitoring Program and Report, could be stayed.

The Tribunal found that the items, as they related to existing wells, constituted an order to monitor, record, and report, which cannot be stayed under section 143(2)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The motion for an interim stay of those items was dismissed, though requirements relating to newly installed wells were stayed pending the main motion.

The appellant sought an interim stay of a Director's Order amending conditions in its Nutrient Management Strategy pending a full stay motion.

The Tribunal granted an interim stay for conditions requiring the submission of an up-to-date strategy and plan, finding no statutory bar and noting they were at the heart of the dispute.

However, the Tribunal refused to stay a condition requiring the appellant to ensure liquid prescribed materials do not travel off the farm field, as doing so could result in environmental impairment under s. 10(4) of the Nutrient Management Act.

Standard record-keeping conditions were also not stayed.

The appellant appealed an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm, which imposed stricter noise limits on a specific turbine.

The Director and the approval holder brought motions to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motions, finding that the appellant's grounds and requested relief focused on the original approval and general compliance issues rather than the amendment itself.

As the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the specific decision under appeal, the appeal related to matters outside its authority and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey apartment building and townhouses.

The core issue was whether there was adequate municipal wastewater servicing capacity for the proposed high-density residential development.

The Tribunal found that the existing sewage system lacked capacity, posing a high risk of basement flooding, and that the applicant's proposed alternative servicing solutions, including a lift station, were not feasible or permitted under the Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed amendment was premature, inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and did not conform to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was dismissed.