Jennifer Gold

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference for appeals brought by Dupont Dev LP against the City of Toronto regarding the refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and the approval of a modified Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Appellant sought to amend its Notice of Appeal to correct clerical errors and expand the applications to include an additional property.

The City objected and indicated its intent to bring a motion to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion to hear these issues.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the City of Burlington's Development Charges By-law No. 41-2024.

The appellant expressed interest in a mediation assessment and requested time to determine if mediation will proceed.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 21, 2024, to allow the parties to explore mediation.

The appellant appealed Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that discussions were continuing and requested a further conference.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 19, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 22-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three requesters and denied it to two others who failed to file the required forms or attend.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow city council time to consider a settlement proposal.

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted that the parties were participating in a mediation assessment and planned to engage in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow time for these discussions.

During a Telephone Conference Call regarding an appeal of a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act, the appellant sought to be represented by a consultant.

The Tribunal determined that the consultant did not hold a Class P1 licence from the Law Society of Ontario and did not meet the exemption criteria under By-law 4 to provide legal services.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's owner a two-week adjournment to consult with legal counsel regarding representation and next steps.

The applicant appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and consent to sever, objecting to a holding provision and a condition requiring a consent agreement.

The parties reached a settlement to approve the applications with revised conditions.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the District and Township Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Environmental Penalty Orders issued for contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The parties reported progress in their discussions and requested that the scheduled October 2024 hearing dates be vacated.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacated the hearing dates, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2024.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the construction of a two-storey accessory structure (garage) and other site alterations on a residential property.

The appellants, who were self-represented neighbours, raised concerns regarding drainage, visual impact, privacy, and neighbourhood compatibility.

The Hearing Officer accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence of the applicant that the proposed development is a permitted accessory use that conforms with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, and local official plans.

The appeal was dismissed and the Commission's decision to issue the permit was confirmed.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Municipality's refusal to enact a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 5-unit cluster townhouse.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order on consent and scheduled a four-day Video Hearing on the merits.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss a claim for injurious affection arising from sewer repair works.

The City argued the claim was barred due to insufficient notice under s. 22(1) of the Expropriations Act, the expiry of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the doctrine of laches.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claimants provided sufficient notice via email in 2011 and subsequent communications.

The Tribunal also held that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply to Expropriations Act claims, and the doctrine of laches was inapplicable given the ongoing communications and lack of prejudice to the City.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a retail store on a rural property.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that included site-specific performance standards, such as increased setbacks and minimum landscaped open space, to ensure compatibility with an abutting residential property.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to facilitate the creation of two new residential lots.

The CMC was adjourned because the Town of Fort Erie had not served notice as directed.

The parties reported they were working towards a settlement, and the CMC was rescheduled.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal of a consent application to sever a parcel for a new residential dwelling.

At a Case Management Conference, the applicants brought a motion for discovery to compel an adjacent property owner to allow a site visit to assess a structure that allegedly triggers Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements.

The motion did not proceed as the adjacent owner consented to the site visit on the condition that the County's planner also attend.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two sets of neighbours and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for land compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the Respondent's use of the Claimant's property for the construction of the Milliken GO Station.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a consent procedural order and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits for January 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation under the Expropriations Act brought by a franchisee and franchisor against Metrolinx.

The claims arose from the expropriation of a property for the Scarborough Subway Extension.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two claims and issued a Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing steps and the scheduling of a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal under section 34(11) of the Planning Act by the applicant against the Township's refusal to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application sought to rezone a portion of the subject lands from Environmental Protection to Rural to expand the building envelope.

The Tribunal approved the consent Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The applicants appealed the Township of Tay Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a residential property to create a new lot.

The subject property is located in a rural shoreline area outside of a settlement area.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence of the Township that the proposed severance was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the Growth Plan, the County Official Plan, the Township Official Plan, or the Zoning By-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Brampton to permit temporary truck and trailer parking.

Following a case management conference, the appellants withdrew their appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that approved a minor variance for a rear yard setback but refused a variance for an interior side yard setback to permit an already-constructed cabana.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the rear yard setback variance was minor and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

However, the Tribunal found that the interior side yard setback variance was not minor and did not maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law due to significant massing and visual impacts on the neighbouring property.

The appeal was dismissed, with the rear yard variance authorized subject to a lot grading condition, and the interior side yard variance refused.