Jean-Pierre Blais

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge's failure to decide a site plan application, failure to issue a demolition permit, and the adoption of a by-law designating the subject property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was informed of a pending fourth appeal regarding a minor variance and scheduled Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal directed that a second CMC be held to allow the fourth appeal to catch up and to receive an update on mediation, rather than setting dates for a merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a three-storey, 16-unit low-rise apartment building.

The requested variances included an increase in permitted units, a reduction in required parking spaces to zero, and reduced setbacks for an accessory building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, representing appropriate intensification in a transit-supported area.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments that would permit a multi-phased high-rise mixed-use development.

Following a successful Tribunal-assisted mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised applications are consistent with provincial policies and represent good land use planning.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the City amends its noise by-law to provide a site-specific exemption for the appellant's nearby distribution facility.

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Canada applied for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a cemetery and accessory uses on lands designated as a prime agricultural area.

Neighbouring landowners appealed the municipal approvals under the Planning Act and the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed cemetery is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, as there is an identified need for an Ahmadiyyan cemetery and no reasonable alternative locations exist.

The Tribunal also found that hydrogeological and traffic impacts can be appropriately managed through Site Plan Control.

The Tribunal concluded that the establishment of the cemetery is in the public interest, noting the Ahmadiyyan community's lack of a faith-based cemetery in Ontario.

The Planning Act appeals were allowed in part to implement the applicant's requested modifications to the planning instruments, and the FBCSA appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment permitting a commercial dog kennel on the neighbouring property.

The core issue was whether the noise from the kennel would adversely impact the enjoyment of the appellant's property.

The Tribunal preferred the applicants' expert noise evidence, finding that proposed mitigation measures implemented through site plan control would adequately address noise concerns.

The Tribunal concluded the amendment was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the official plans, dismissing the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to develop a work plan to remove underground fuel tanks and delineate soil and groundwater contamination at a former retail fuel outlet they purchased at a municipal tax sale.

The appellants argued the Ministry should have pursued the former owner's estate or the adjoining property owner.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants were the current owners and managers of the site, and the uncontradicted expert evidence established that the order was necessary and advisable to protect the environment from petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants.

The claimant sought compensation of approximately $2,720,000 for business losses arising from the expropriation of interests in its fuel station and convenience store property by the respondent municipality.

The parties had previously resolved compensation for the taking of the land.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference and issued a procedural order setting a five-day merit hearing for March 2025 and establishing dates for pleadings, discoveries, and the exchange of expert reports.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of an abandoned excavator from a flood plain and sought a stay of the order pending the appeal.

The renter of the excavator, who was jointly named in the order, did not appeal and continued to comply with the order's mitigation plan.

On consent of the parties, and applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal granted the stay of the order against the appellant until the final disposition of the appeal, noting that no environmental harm would result as long as the renter continued to comply.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding a proposed plan of subdivision, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the subject lands were never surrendered to the Crown and remain reserve lands.

The parties informed the Tribunal of a conditional agreement for the MBQ to purchase the lands, which would result in the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal adjourned the motion to allow time for the sale to close or, alternatively, for the MBQ to serve Notices of a constitutional question on the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

The Applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit two 15-storey apartment buildings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Peel and participant status to two individuals on consent.

The Tribunal declined to set dates for a merit hearing as the parties were engaged in mediation and an issues list had not yet been finalized, instead scheduling a second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals against a zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Pickering to permit a place of worship and a private school.

The parties submitted a draft procedural order on consent.

The Tribunal issued the procedural order, setting out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, and the issues list.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of an abandoned excavator from a flood plain and sought a stay of the order.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that the renter of the equipment had retained a contractor to extract the excavator and that a consent stay might be agreed upon.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider the consent stay or determine next steps if an agreement could not be reached.

The claimant sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act, alleging that a municipal by-law restricted access to its lands.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were engaged in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow discussions to continue and directed the respondent to file its reply to the statement of claim.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit for the construction of a new dwelling and septic system.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Hearing Officer noted that no meaningful discussions had occurred between the parties and no Procedural Order or Issues List had been provided.

The Hearing Officer scheduled a second Case Management Conference to organize the appeals and encouraged the parties to explore settlement.

The Tribunal issued a correction to its February 1, 2024 decision regarding a settlement for a proposed residential development in Cambridge.

The correction addressed a typographical error in the approved Zoning By-Law Amendment (Attachment 2) which incorrectly referenced section 3.1.2a.(b),(c),(i) instead of 3.1.2.4 (b),(c),(i).

The Tribunal noted the error originated from the settlement materials provided by the parties and ordered the replacement of the attachment without amending the core decision.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed four-tower residential development and parkland dedication, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the ABC Residents Association.

The Tribunal denied the City's request to phase the hearing to first address threshold environmental and natural heritage issues, finding that a phased approach would not be expeditious and would likely result in duplication of evidence.

A 22-day merit hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was approved.

The appellants appealed the failure of the Town of Erin and the County of Wellington to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a mixed-use community.

Following a settlement agreement regarding the remaining deferred lands, the Tribunal reviewed uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with provincial policies and good planning principles, allowed the appeals in part, and approved the planning instruments subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use high-rise development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and Air Liquide Canada Inc. The Tribunal declined the applicant's request to link Air Liquide's party status to disclosure obligations, directing that disclosure issues be addressed separately.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and address any outstanding disclosure motions.

Windmill Developments Ltd. brought a motion to dismiss appeals by two individuals against the City of Ottawa's approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for a high-rise residential development.

The appellants argued the development did not comply with a policy regarding distance to a transit station and relied on outdated traffic data.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide expert evidence and that their grounds of appeal did not disclose legitimate planning grounds with a reasonable prospect of success.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use commercial development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised applications.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.