Jennifer Gold

The Canadian National Railway Company appealed the Town of Aylmer's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near a railway line, citing concerns about safety, noise, and vibration.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and proposed a revised Zoning By-law Amendment that included a 15-metre rear yard depth to address the railway's concerns.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with provincial and local planning policies and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval application for a six-tower residential redevelopment.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals.

The Tribunal also administratively consolidated the site plan appeal with the zoning by-law amendment appeal, holding the site plan appeal in abeyance.

A second Case Management Conference and a 15-day merit hearing were scheduled.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the City's failure to make a decision on a minor variance application to permit the renovation and partial reconstruction of an existing theatre.

The Tribunal granted party status to a local residents' association and participant status to several individuals and another association.

The Tribunal also administratively consolidated a related site plan approval appeal with the minor variance appeal, adjourning the former sine die.

A second Case Management Conference and a five-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three minor variances required to construct a new two-storey dwelling.

The variances sought relief for increased building height, reduced rear yard setback, and increased lot coverage.

The parties reached a settlement and relied on a municipal planning report supporting the application.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent 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 subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Enniskillen Pepper Co. Ltd. against a zoning by-law affecting cannabis cultivation in the Township of Enniskillen.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to several individuals, while denying participant status to a proposed expert witness.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to address the potential consolidation of this appeal with another related file.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to facilitate a 10-unit townhouse development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Halton and an abutting neighbour, and participant status to another individual.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the respondent's passing of Zoning By-law Amendments.

The Tribunal scheduled a written motion to determine whether the respondent had jurisdiction to pass the by-law, and deferred requests for party status until after the motion is decided.

The appeals by one of the appellants were subsequently withdrawn.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Ballymore Building (Midhurst) Corp. for a zoning by-law amendment due to the Township of Springwater's failure to make a decision.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner without objection.

The appellant requested consolidation of this appeal with an existing draft plan of subdivision appeal.

The Tribunal adjourned the consolidation request to a second Case Management Conference to allow for proper notice to the parties of the related appeal.

The appellant appealed a conditional approval by the City of London Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit an existing deck to encroach 0.6 metres from the south lot line, where 1.2 metres is required.

The Committee had imposed a condition requiring a lot grading plan for stormwater flows.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the drainage issues could be adequately addressed without requiring a formal lot grading plan, given the appellant's undertaking to install a drainage system.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions regarding privacy screening and drainage improvements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 31-storey residential building.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

An eight-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled to commence on July 15, 2024.

The appellants appealed the Township of Puslinch's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit shipping containers and the storage of motorized personal vehicles.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal consequently ordered the appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed the city's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an eight-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the city's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of various conditions, including the conveyance of a ravine buffer to the city.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control applications for a high-density residential development.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, approved a revised Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the conditions of draft plan approval for an 18-lot residential subdivision in the Township of Oro-Medonte.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on the disputed conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised conditions were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and had appropriate regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised conditions.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a new single dwelling.

The appellant failed to attend the Case Management Conference and did not provide any planning justification for the appeal.

The Hearing Office dismissed the appeal pursuant to s. 25(8.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, confirming the Commission's decision.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties indicated an openness to mediation and submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order with minor modifications and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Starbank West Corporation against the City of Toronto's non-decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing by video for April 28, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Leverton Developments Inc. against the Township of Malahide's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The amendment sought to permit a two-and-a-half storey, six-unit apartment building.

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

The appellants appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit an existing park model trailer as a primary residential dwelling and to legalize an existing shed on their waterfront property.

The City had issued a zoning by-law infraction notice, classifying the structure as a park model trailer, which is not a permitted use in the Residential Estate Type 1 zone.

The Tribunal found that the structure was indeed a park model trailer and not a single detached dwelling.

Applying the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal concluded that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was not minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the conditions of a provisional consent to sever a property granted by the County of Huron.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement amending the conditions to require an easement for beach access and the transfer of an existing laneway to the Township.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended conditions reasonable and the proposed severance consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.