M. Arpino

The appellants appealed a minor variance application under section 45(12) of the Planning Act for the reconstruction and expansion of a legal non-complying single detached dwelling in the Municipality of Central Elgin.

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to approve the minor variance subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The Tribunal found that the proposed minor variance and conditions had regard for matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the minor variance subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Welland's Zoning By-law No. 2021-183, which regulates cannabis cultivation, production, and processing operations.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted that settlement discussions had not resolved the appeal and that a four-day hearing was anticipated.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's By-laws 89-2022 and 125-2022, which updated parking standards for automobiles and bicycles.

The parties agreed to scope the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the by-laws are deemed to have come into force on the day they were passed for all areas of the City, save and except for the appellants' subject lands.

The substantive consideration of the appeal regarding the subject lands was deferred for two years.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by the appellant regarding park levy fees.

The appellant had failed to take any steps to advance the appeal since 2013 and did not respond to multiple written requests from the Tribunal for status updates.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's inactivity and failure to respond constituted an abandonment of the appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed without a hearing pursuant to section 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to render a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The application proposed a 66-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to 320 Front Portfolio Inc. The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing on the merits of the appeal.

The City of Thunder Bay brought a motion under section 34(31) of the Planning Act for an order allowing its new comprehensive zoning by-law to take effect while four site-specific appeals remained pending.

The City provided uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the by-law did not change the zoning provisions applicable to the appellants' properties.

The appellants did not respond to the motion or provide evidence of prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that allowing the unappealed portions of the by-law to come into force accorded with the purposes of the Planning Act and would not prejudice the appellants.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of their application to amend the Zoning By-law to allow for the storage of fireworks.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to 11 individuals without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 3-day merit hearing to commence on April 4, 2023, and directed the Town's counsel to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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

The parties reached a settlement for a 31-unit freehold townhouse development.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming Official Plan Amendment No. 54, the Tribunal ordered the separation of the Southside Construction Management Limited appeal from the Venture Group appeal.

The Southside appeal was adjourned sine die on consent to be considered with future site-specific applications.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for the Venture Group appeal to allow for ongoing settlement discussions and to be heard together with a related appeal.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 607-2015.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day hearing on the merits for the appeal by D. Crupi & Sons Ltd. and D.C.M. Holdings Ltd., and scheduled a third Case Management Conference to consider the status of the remaining appeals and potential settlements.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of an Official Plan Amendment without a hearing under s. 17(45) of the Planning Act.

The appellant argued the amendment was res judicata due to a 2014 OMB decision.

The Tribunal found the proposed development had sufficiently changed, defeating the res judicata claim.

The Tribunal concluded the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant's request for costs was denied as the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable or frivolous.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval for a proposed 6-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality and one resident, and participant status to several other area residents.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 10-day hearing and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law 125-2022 under section 34(19) of the Planning Act.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to continue their collaboration and directed them to provide an update or a draft Procedural Order prior to the next hearing.

The City of Barrie appealed an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval issued by the Director to Laguna Trading Ltd. for a waste disposal site.

The Director brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing the City had no right of appeal under s. 139 of the Environmental Protection Act and had missed the deadline to seek leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Tribunal found that the City did not have a right of appeal under s. 139, as it was not the applicant or holder of the approval.

The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the mandatory 15-day deadline for seeking leave to appeal under the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Director's failure to consider the City's comments prior to issuing the approval did not create a right of appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicants sought minor variances to construct a new two-storey dwelling, which were granted by the Committee of Adjustment.

Several individuals appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the remaining appellants and the applicants reached a settlement.

On consent, the Tribunal converted the oral hearing to a written hearing to allow the parties to finalize and submit their settlement materials.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an 8 to 15 storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan, and City Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

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

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Eglinton Park Residents' Association, with the option to assign it to a newly forming coalition once incorporated.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits and directed the parties to finalize a procedural order.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a minor variance to reduce the minimum parking space width from 2.7 metres to 2.4 metres to allow for a secondary dwelling unit.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that City staff had recommended approval and found the space sufficient for a vehicle to park and maneuver.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 450 and the failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications for properties on Laird Drive.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the zoning by-law amendments and the OPA 450 appeal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the zoning by-law amendments and modified OPA 450 accordingly.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 450 and the failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications for properties on Laird Drive.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the zoning by-law amendments and the appeal of OPA 450.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments and modifications to OPA 450.