N. Allam

The applicant appealed conditions 4 and 5 of a provisional consent for a boundary adjustment, which required the removal of an existing driveway access to Highway 3.

The Tribunal found that the driveway had existed since the 1930s and was legally grandfathered under the Ministry of Transportation's Highway Corridor Management Manual.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, amending condition 4 and deleting condition 5, confirming the existing driveway may continue as a legal entrance.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to recognize a retaining wall within a shoreline buffer and conditionally approving a variance for a floating dock.

The Tribunal found that the retaining wall functioned as a permitted flood and erosion control facility rather than a hard landscaping amenity.

The Tribunal authorized both variances, concluding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions reducing the retaining wall's height and implementing a landscape plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variance applications to permit the development of four new semi-detached dwellings on existing severed lots.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, rear yard setback, and rear yard area.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, conformed to the City's Official Plan goals for intensification, and met the four tests for minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellants appealed the conditions attached to a provisional consent granted by the County of Hastings for a lot addition intended to resolve access and encroachment issues for a neighbouring property.

The appellants contested conditions requiring a detailed plot plan of the neighbouring lands and the dedication of portions of their retained lands to the municipality for road widening and a turnaround.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the consent itself represented good planning, the disputed conditions were not reasonable, necessary, or equitable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act, as they would require actions on lands not owned by the appellants and disproportionately burden them with road dedication.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals against the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of witness lists, expert reports, and other materials leading up to a three-day video hearing scheduled to commence on November 20, 2024.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal under the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish a designated building.

The parties reported ongoing efforts to reach a resolution involving the preservation of significant heritage elements while removing non-conservation additions.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to provide a status update or proceed as a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an office use on the ground floor of a downtown building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the application to specifically permit a real estate brokerage office, subject to conditions ensuring an active store frontage.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, is consistent with provincial policies, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the revised minor variance was approved.

The City of St. Catharines appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent and minor variances that would facilitate a lot boundary adjustment to construct a new detached dwelling and septic system on lands designated for agricultural use.

The applicants argued the adjustment was minor and for technical reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed boundary adjustment was not minor, took significantly more land than necessary for the technical requirement of a new septic system, and failed to protect agricultural resources in conformity with the applicable official plans and the Greenbelt Plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a decision issued on July 22, 2024.

The amendment clarified the upcoming hearing event information regarding a Case Management Conference and a Merit Hearing scheduled for November 2024.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit the expansion of a mineral aggregate operation.

At a case management conference, the applicant requested a hearing date be set despite a concurrent Aggregate Resources Act application not yet being referred to the Tribunal.

A party opposed setting a date, arguing the constitutional duty to consult First Nations had not been met.

The Tribunal found it premature to set a hearing date due to uncertainty regarding the scope of issues and directed a third case management conference.

The Tribunal also directed that any constitutional arguments must be brought by formal written motion with proper notice.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The City provided status updates on Phase 3, 4, and 7 appeals, as well as various topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting several withdrawals and ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal ordered a further Case Management Conference for November 2024 and scheduled a three-day merit hearing for a specific site appeal.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed 42-storey mixed-use building, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Catholic District School Board and The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada on consent.

The Tribunal also adjourned the site plan appeal pending the determination of the zoning by-law amendment appeal and scheduled a four-day merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's non-decision regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a proposed seven-storey purpose-built rental development.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the proposal to increase building separation, provide more pedestrian space, and introduce on-site affordable housing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications represented good planning and approved the amendments in principle, withholding the final order pending satisfaction of technical conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances for the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Cognashene Cottagers Association on consent.

A Procedural Order was approved and a two-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The appellant appealed a municipally initiated comprehensive zoning by-law amendment that introduced a new Natural Environment zone on his properties, arguing it did not permit ongoing agricultural uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to apply only to the appellant's properties.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal scoped accordingly and deemed the unappealed portions of the zoning by-law to have come into force on the day it was passed, pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's non-decision regarding a zoning by-law amendment to permit a mixed-use tower.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 46-storey tower that retains and highlights existing heritage features.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.