Jackie Denyes

The appellant appealed a minor variance application to permit the building of a sleeping cabin.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its previous decision dated August 7, 2024.

The amendments corrected a paragraph referencing the Township's Official Plan and changed a word in one of the conditions.

In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.

The appellant appealed the City of Greater Sudbury's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a three-storey, 10-unit multiple dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals opposing the application.

The parties requested an adjournment to scope the issues list and engage in mediation.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter to a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the City of London Committee of Adjustment's decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot area per unit required to convert an existing four-plex into an eight-plex.

The City did not contest the appeal.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision dated August 7, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the title line of the decision was amended to read 'DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL'.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the construction of a sleeping cabin on a shoreline residential lot on Six Mile Lake.

The requested variances involved increased lot coverage and reduced interior side yard and building separation setbacks.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the sleeping cabin was compatible with existing residential uses, would not have significant visual or privacy impacts, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed a Cost Recovery Order issued by the City of St. Catharines under the Environmental Protection Act for over $4.1 million in expenses related to a spill and fire.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellants requested a motion date to seek additional disclosure of documents and invoices from the City, and an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The City opposed the adjournment and argued it had already provided extensive disclosure.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion for additional disclosure particulars but did not adjourn the merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicants against the municipality's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The amendments seek to permit the development of a mid-rise residential apartment.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for a three-day video hearing scheduled to commence on November 20, 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a 24-storey mixed-use building.

At the fourth case management conference, the parties requested that the matter proceed directly to a 10-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for March 2025 and set deadlines for the filing of a procedural order, issues list, and hearing plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a home-based personal fitness training business to occupy 34% of the dwelling's gross floor area, exceeding the 25% maximum.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the business operates indoors without causing noise, traffic, or parking nuisances.

Finding that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies promoting economic development, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance.

The applicant appealed the amount of cash in-lieu of parkland required by the Town of Halton Hills for a 31-unit residential subdivision.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant advised it was obtaining a second appraisal of the subject property.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a three-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of London's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mid-rise residential apartment building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal consolidated a related site-specific appeal regarding the new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The parties requested a three-day merit hearing, noting the City Council had recently endorsed support for the proposed development.

The Tribunal scheduled the merit hearing and directed the exchange of a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant sought a Category 3 - Class 'A' Licence to permit extraction of aggregate in an above water pit.

Several local residents objected, raising concerns about environmental impacts, noise, dust, and traffic safety.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed pit, subject to site plan conditions and mitigation measures, meets the criteria under section 12 of the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to issue the licence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 15-day hearing scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicant regarding the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to approve a Site Plan Control application for a mixed-use development.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct an addition to their single-detached dwelling.

The variances sought to permit reduced parking space length and width.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for a consent to sever and minor variances to facilitate the creation of two residential lots from one existing lot.

The central issue was whether the proposed reduced lot width and area were compatible with the character of the mature neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert planning evidence, finding that the appropriate neighbourhood study area was broader than just the immediate street and included a mix of lot sizes.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development would coexist harmoniously without unacceptable adverse impacts, satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and met the four-part test for minor variances under s. 45(1).

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was given, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicants sought to sever an existing rural residential lot containing two dwellings into two parcels, arguing the lots had inadvertently merged.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent.

The City of Hamilton appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and denied the consent, finding that the proposed severance did not have regard to matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement's discouragement of lot creation in rural areas, and did not conform with the Rural Hamilton Official Plan's protection of agricultural lands.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a consent application to sever a surplus farm dwelling following a farm consolidation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the severance would not result in the loss of active agricultural lands and met all criteria under the Provincial Policy Statement and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions agreed upon in minutes of settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Spire Properties Ltd. for the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 24-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reported productive strides in narrowing the issues but requested more time.

On consent, the Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and further scope the issues list.

The City of Toronto brought a request for directions before the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical or typographical error in the Appearances section of its previous decision issued on April 18, 2024.

The decision was amended to accurately reflect the counsel who appeared for the parties.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an oversized accessory storage building for a landscaping home industry.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved a revised Zoning By-law Amendment, noting that the original draft improperly attempted to regulate the user rather than the use of the land by specifying who could be employed.