Jennifer Campbell

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's refusal of an application to partially demolish a fire-damaged building designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal assisted the parties in streamlining the draft Issues List by removing duplicative and irrelevant items.

The Tribunal finalized the Issues List, directed the submission of a final Procedural Order, and scheduled a merit hearing for September 2025.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a new single dwelling.

At a Case Management Conference, the owners brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under Section 15.4 of the OLT Rules.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to identify any specific breaches of the Niagara Escarpment Plan or the Provincial Planning Statement and did not intend to call expert evidence.

Concluding the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a heritage designation by-law concerning the subject property.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellant requested that a hearing date be set for late 2025 and a subsequent CMC be scheduled to consider consolidating this appeal with anticipated appeals of related Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and demolition permit applications.

The Town did not object.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for April 2025 and a 10-day hearing for October 2025 to allow time for potential consolidation and mediation.

The appellants objected to a by-law passed by the City of Richmond Hill designating their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the parties discussed the issues to be adjudicated and reviewed a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a final Issues List and subsequently set hearing dates for the matter.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed 49-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 62-storey development that includes heritage conservation, increased setbacks, and affordable housing contributions.

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

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several preconditions.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Following a settlement between one appellant and the Town, the parties sought approval of minor amendments to clarify the by-law's language regarding the timing of land value assessments and the definition of development, aligning it with sections 41 and 42(6.4) of the Act.

The Tribunal approved the amendments on consent, resolving that appellant's appeal, while the appeals of the other parties remain ongoing.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests to substitute parties in appeals concerning a proposed 49-storey residential building in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted the unopposed request to substitute Carlyle Young Maitland GP Inc. as the Appellant, as it had acquired the subject property.

The Tribunal also granted the request to substitute OEF Village Green Nominee Inc. as a party in place of Greenrock, following OEF's acquisition of adjacent lands.

Finally, the Tribunal cancelled a previously scheduled hearing and set an accelerated written hearing date to consider a settlement offer accepted by City Council.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for increased outdoor storage and reduced parking, but imposing conditions the appellant found unacceptable.

The appellant sought to replace the conditions with a single requirement for a chain link fence with mesh screening.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to the revised screening condition.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn the merit hearing of an appeal against a heritage designation by-law.

The applicant sought to have the appeal heard together with anticipated appeals of related official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and demolition permit applications for the same property.

The Town opposed the adjournment, arguing the planning applications were premature until the heritage appeal was resolved.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that consolidating the matters would be an efficient use of resources and that the Town would not be prejudiced, as the heritage by-law remains in effect pending the appeal.

The appellant appealed the revocation of an Environmental Compliance Approval for a non-hazardous solid waste transfer facility.

During the hearing, after the appellant's first witness was cross-examined, the appellant received instructions to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal withdrawn on consent.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's decision to deny retroactive approval for a 62-foot armour stone wall and related developments adjacent to the Rideau River.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to the appellant's neighbours and issued a Procedural Order setting the issues and dates for a two-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Essex Region Conservation Authority's denial of a permit to reconstruct a house and detached structure.

The parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order and finalized the Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day merit hearing to determine whether the proposed works constitute a development under the Conservation Authorities Act and whether a permit should be allowed.

The expropriating authority proposed to expropriate a portion of the property owner's land to expand a multi-use public trail along a former railbed.

The property owner requested a Hearing of Necessity, objecting to the proposed width of the expropriation at the northern end of the property, which ranged from 20 to 40 metres.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed taking was 'sound' from a land use planning perspective to avoid orphaned parcels, it was neither 'reasonably necessary' nor 'fair'.

The trail only required a width of 4 to 5 metres, and taking the entire width of the northern portion would have a materially adverse impact on the property owner's use and enjoyment of the lands.

The Tribunal concluded the expropriation as proposed did not meet the statutory test under section 7(5) of the Expropriations Act.

The appellant appealed the Essex Region Conservation Authority's refusal to issue a permit for the reconstruction of a house and detached structure.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties discussed the issues, which included whether the reconstruction constituted 'development' and whether safety considerations were properly applied.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference and ordered the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the municipality's designation of its property under the Ontario Heritage Act, arguing the property had not been properly evaluated and the heritage attributes were not adequately described.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report prepared by the appellant's expert.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, ordering that the property be designated in accordance with an amended by-law that accurately reflects the property's cultural heritage value and attributes as identified in the expert report.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit increased lot coverage and floor area ratio for a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal reviewed the municipal staff report, which concluded that the variances, subject to a condition reducing the number of second-storey windows, met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to the agreed condition.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission of a development permit application to demolish an existing one-storey dwelling and construct a two-storey single dwelling.

Following a case management conference where the parties discussed issues and settlement, the appellants withdrew their appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal consequently dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order requiring the removal of underground fuel tanks and piping at a gas bar, and sought an interim stay of the Order pending a full stay motion.

The Ontario Land Tribunal denied the interim stay because the appellant failed to provide substantive submissions or evidence of irreparable harm, despite being given multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal scheduled the full stay motion for a later date.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a conditional approval for a development permit under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the applicants for the permit sought and were granted party status on consent.

The president of the condominium corporation withdrew his request for party status, agreeing to participate as a witness instead.

The parties discussed the issues, including driveway location and drainage, and agreed to review revised development plans before scheduling a subsequent Case Management Conference.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a conditional approval for the demolition of a single-storey dwelling and construction of a two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the conference, one appellant withdrew their appeal and the remaining appellants were excused for medical reasons.

The Tribunal rescheduled the Case Management Conference to allow the parties to review and narrow the issues without undue delay.