Nehad Allam

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 42-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised plans to the Tribunal.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and requested a hearing.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence in September 2025.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a front-facing attached garage for a new multi-generational home.

The City attended the hearing as an observer and took no position.

The Tribunal found that the proposed variance met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that it maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor in nature, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the municipality's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed mixed-use development.

The parties reported ongoing technical discussions and requested a further CMC following a scheduled municipal council meeting.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth CMC for October 17, 2024, and directed the parties to provide an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City of London Committee of Adjustment's decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum lot area per unit required to convert an existing four-plex into an eight-plex.

The City did not contest the appeal.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose 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.

The appellant appealed the City of Stratford Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application seeking to increase the maximum permitted height for a new detached dwelling from 10.0 metres to 11.39 metres.

The variance was requested to accommodate an elevator shaft hidden within the roofline.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found, based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence supported by the City, that the requested variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by CBM Aggregates against the Township of North Dumfries' failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the extension of an existing sand and gravel pit.

The Tribunal determined it was appropriate to schedule the hearing for the Planning Act appeal without waiting for the related Aggregate Resources Act matter, as the delay for the latter was indeterminate.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for August 2025, and a Procedural Order was issued.

The applicants appealed a condition imposed by the Township of Muskoka Lakes on a provisional consent to sever a waterfront property.

The disputed condition required an agreement to use specific soils or technologies for phosphorus retention in the septic system.

At a settlement hearing, the parties jointly requested approval of the consent without the soil condition.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the condition unreasonable as it lacked clarity and was superseded by the Building Code Act.

The Tribunal approved the revised consent, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The Applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit two 15-storey apartment buildings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Peel and participant status to two individuals on consent.

The Tribunal declined to set dates for a merit hearing as the parties were engaged in mediation and an issues list had not yet been finalized, instead scheduling a second Case Management Conference.