Hugh S. Wilkins

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a cottage rental use on the subject property.

The variances sought reductions in on-site amenity area, parking stalls, and parking area setbacks.

The parties reached a settlement restricting the use to a two-bedroom cottage rental and requiring an encroachment agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, authorizing the variances subject to conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Pickering's Official Plan Amendment No. 40 and related Zoning By-law Amendments concerning infill and replacement housing.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of appeals by Centreville Homes.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the remaining parties and scheduled a 15-day video hearing to commence on July 17, 2023.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit six dwelling units within an existing detached dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to five local residents.

As the parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to identify the issues and set hearing dates.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to pass a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a 43-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications for 53 and 55 Yonge Street, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to several adjacent property owners and a condominium corporation.

The Tribunal also approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing for February 2023.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for a hauled sewage disposal site on an adjacent property.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the applicants had standing to seek leave to appeal under section 38(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to satisfy the two-part test under section 41.

The Tribunal concluded that the Director's decision was reasonable, as it was based on comprehensive technical reports and included stringent conditions to protect water resources and prevent off-site impacts.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence that the ECA could result in significant harm to the environment.

Following a previous decision allowing the appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of a deck and stairs on a waterfront residential property, the parties submitted a draft Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal reviewed the draft, noted the consent of all parties, and ordered the approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit allowing the applicant to renovate an existing accessory building into a washroom facility for an on-farm event venue.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal conformed with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision to conditionally approve the development permit.

The Township of Ramara sought approval of an amendment to its Lagoon City Parks and Waterways Levy By-law to increase levies on properties operating short-term rental accommodations.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to a short-term rental operator and scheduled a one-day hearing to determine whether the proposed levy is fair and reasonably justifiable.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval applications within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to a local development group and participant status to a neighbouring resident and a homeowners association on consent.

The parties were directed to provide a draft joint Issues List, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the City of Kenora's passage of official plan and zoning by-law amendments intended to convert the western half of Central Park into residential development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed instruments were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the City's Official Plan, as they failed to adequately protect necessary parkland and open space.

Furthermore, the City failed to demonstrate that the proposed sensitive residential land use would be compatible with a nearby railyard facility, and inappropriately attempted to defer necessary noise and compatibility studies to the site plan approval stage.

The appeals were allowed and the by-law was repealed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of Zoning By-law No. 62-21, which restricted the expansion of its existing cannabis production and processing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly requested the Tribunal to approve an amended version of the by-law.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended by-law, which establishes site-specific setbacks and excludes outdoor growth or storage, is consistent with provincial policies and constitutes good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to enact the amended by-law.

The appellant appealed conditions in an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval relating to odour emissions from its animal by-product processing plant.

The parties reached a settlement to replace a mandatory odour performance limit with an odour objective, requiring comprehensive updates to the Odour Management Plan and continuous improvement measures.

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed amendments satisfy the statutory requirements of the Environmental Protection Act and are in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 7-storey mixed-use residential building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted Party status to an adjacent landowner and Participant status to two individuals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address a potential consolidation request regarding an anticipated Ontario Heritage Act appeal and to finalize the Procedural Order.

The City of Thunder Bay brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a minor variance approval without a hearing, arguing the appellant lacked standing.

The appellant, who lived over 14 kilometres away, claimed standing based on his special knowledge as a land use planner.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the variance would have impacts outside the local area, directly impact him, or affect matters of public interest.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant was not an 'interested person' under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, an adjacent landowner, sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for upgraded sewage works at a neighbouring wedding venue.

The Tribunal found the applicant had standing under s. 38(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

However, the applicant failed to satisfy the leave test under s. 41.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence that the upgraded sewage system posed a low risk to the environment and would actually improve upon the existing system.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order relating to sewage works at a camping and RV resort and requested a stay.

The parties consented to an interim stay pending the disposition of the stay motion.

The Tribunal found it had the statutory authority under the Ontario Water Resources Act to grant the interim stay, as it would not cause immediate environmental harm, and granted the request.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing.

The Tribunal found that the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the appeal could be allowed, as it only raised general concerns regarding design and compatibility without linking them to applicable policies.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted Party status to Lafarge Canada Inc. and two local residents, and Participant status to two other residents.

The Tribunal declined to set hearing dates until the issues list is finalized, ordering a further Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the Issues List for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal approved the issues proposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, with an amendment to include water quality and quantity.

The Tribunal struck several issues proposed by the appellant, finding that concerns regarding the need for a site visit, the applicant's past conduct, and the need for an occupancy permit were not substantive issues for adjudication under the applicable legislation.

A procedural order was issued and a one-day video hearing was scheduled.