Jean-Pierre Blais

The Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a commercial development.

The Tribunal scheduled a fifth CMC and a five-day merit hearing, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of two four-storey apartment buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the City resolved not to oppose the application.

Based on uncontested expert evidence in land use planning, transportation, and environmental noise, the Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law was amended accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-rise residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal featuring reduced building heights and increased setbacks.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with applicable official plans, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the applications in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final instruments.

The National Capital Commission appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a diplomatic precinct and federal park.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments had regard to matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the amendments.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 45-unit residential infill development for seniors, arguing it interfered with their adjacent development plans by creating a permanent turning circle.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the site plan to ensure access without interfering with the appellant's lot.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised development and draft amended zoning by-law had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law amendment application to permit a 26-storey rental apartment building.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 22-storey building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications, as well as a heritage designation, for a proposed 31-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Halton on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order and consolidated issues list.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to convert an existing three-unit dwelling into a four-unit low-rise apartment.

The variances related to rear yard setback, rear yard area, interior side yard setbacks, front façade recess, and garbage container pathway.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintaining the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent to sever a rural property to create a new residential lot.

The appellant argued the proposed severed and retained lots, each with 75-metre frontages, failed to meet the 100-metre minimum lot frontage requirement for Minor Collector roads under the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the application did not conform to the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the protection of transportation corridors, and did not represent good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was refused.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an outside take-out canteen on her residential property.

The municipality refused the application due to road safety concerns and a lack of off-street parking at a busy intersection.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert land use planning evidence that the proposed amendment was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Official Plan, and did not meet the intent of the Comprehensive By-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law passed by the municipality that would permit a multi-residential development on a vacant lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that maintained the required front yard setback and added fencing requirements.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the procedural schedule and format for two upcoming motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation, rejected the claimant's request to bifurcate the hearing into separate entitlement and quantum phases, and directed that both motions be heard concurrently over a five-day period, with the claimant presenting its motion first.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 196-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development had regard to matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and constituted good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, amended the Zoning By-law, and approved the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

New World Centre (Markham) Development Corp., a neighbouring property owner, requested and was granted party status on consent.

The parties advised they are engaged in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for August 21, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and consolidated Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning a proposed 53-unit townhouse development in Toronto.

The appeals related to a minor variance refusal and the City's failure to make decisions on site plan and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The Tribunal granted provisional participant status to four entities and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to refine the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment's refusal of two consent applications and three minor variance applications to sever a vacant rural lot into three parcels for residential use.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to the applicable official plans, and can be supported by private water and septic systems.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consents subject to conditions and authorizing the minor variances for reduced lot frontages, finding that the applications satisfy the criteria under s. 51(24) and the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to render a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 66-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 60-storey building.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 32-lot single-detached residential subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement, which the Tribunal approved based on uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal found the applications had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 24-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the development to 22 detached dwellings, including 9 freehold and 13 on a common element condominium road.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with applicable official plans, representing a compatible form of gentle intensification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit reduced front lot line setbacks for a partially constructed porch platform and proposed ornamental structures on a residential property.

The Town did not appear at the hearing.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the existing dwelling already had a legal non-complying setback and the additions would not adversely impact the streetscape.

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