N. Eisazadeh

The appellant appealed the City of Waterloo's zoning by-law amendment to the Ontario Land Tribunal, seeking site-specific exemptions for a proposed residential subdivision.

The disputed exemptions involved reduced side yard setbacks for certain lots and permitted porch and balcony encroachments into the front yard for cluster developments.

The City opposed the exemptions, citing concerns over grading, drainage, snow storage, neighbourhood character, and the implications of a new provincial regulation (O. Reg. 257/25).

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, preferring the appellant's expert evidence that the reduced setbacks and encroachments would not cause adverse impacts, would maintain neighbourhood character, and would facilitate a compact, efficient development in conformity with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto for non-decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval to permit a 49-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted conditional participant status to one additional individual.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 10-day merits hearing to commence by video on November 30, 2026.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning Official Plan Amendments 861 and 862, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together.

The Tribunal scheduled a jurisdictional motion brought by the City of Toronto to dismiss certain school board appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted party status to the Confederation of Residents and Ratepayers Associations in Toronto and a local resident, and provisionally granted participant status to 103 individuals and entities, conditional on the outcome of the City's jurisdictional motion.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 59-unit townhouse development.

At a case management conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement-in-principle.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing to consider the proposed settlement be conducted in writing and adjourned the matter sine die, with a status update required if materials were not filed by June 30, 2026.

At a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment, the Tribunal granted party status to Atura Power and participant status to three local residents.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and scheduled a 15-day merits hearing.

The appellant appealed the municipality's adoption of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate a mixed-use development.

At the first case management conference, the parties advised the tribunal that they were engaged in resolution discussions.

The tribunal scheduled a second case management conference on the joint request of the parties and directed the filing of a procedural order and issues list.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status in appeals concerning an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Canadian National Railway Company and the Stewarttown Community Association, and participant status to an adjacent landowner.

The Tribunal also ordered that the appeals be heard together and set dates for a 19-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Slessor Square LP1 against the Town of Milton's failure to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a high-density mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 29 individuals, subject to them providing written confirmation of their proximity to the proposed development.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 19-day merit hearing for April 2027.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by several school boards and a private corporation against the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 862 and related zoning by-laws.

The instruments aim to facilitate mid-rise intensification along certain Avenues.

The appellants appealed because their lands were excluded from the redesignation.

The City indicated its intention to bring a jurisdictional motion to dismiss appeals concerning lands outside the scope of the instruments.

The Tribunal deferred several party and participant status requests until the second CMC or after the jurisdictional motion is decided, and scheduled a second CMC to coordinate with anticipated appeals of a related Official Plan Amendment (OPA 861).

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of a demolition permit for the Robert McLaughlin House, a designated heritage property that had sustained fire damage.

The applicant argued that the property's structural condition rendered restoration financially and practically infeasible, and that requiring restoration would infringe on private property rights.

The Tribunal held that the costs of restoration are beyond its jurisdiction under section 34.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the physical condition of the property is only relevant in narrow exceptions which did not apply here.

The Tribunal found that the property continues to retain its cultural heritage value and interest, and that the proposed full demolition is inconsistent with the mandatory conservation policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a written hearing to consider a settlement proposal regarding appeals of the City of Pickering's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for a high-density, mixed-use residential development.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised settlement proposal, which includes affordable housing, commercial space, and parkland, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a high-density, mixed-use residential development.

The appeals were heard together with appeals of the City's proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 38.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised development proposal, which included increased commercial space, an elementary school, a daycare, and 100 affordable units.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application for an Official Plan Amendment to alter the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard designation boundaries on the subject lands to facilitate future residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the Hazard Land Overlay and created a Special Policy Area requiring further environmental and geotechnical studies before development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence and approved the settlement, finding the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and in the public interest.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning the failure of the City of Pickering to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a high-density mixed-use development, the Tribunal granted party status to Emix Ltd. on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that these appeals be heard together with related site-specific appeals, as the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement in principle.

A written settlement hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order correcting a minor formatting error in a previously approved Zoning By-law Amendment for the property at 135 Plunkett Road in Toronto.

The amendment permits the construction of stacked townhouses.

The correction replaced the previous ZBA instrument with a revised version to ensure street names in the diagrams were legible, pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc brought a joint scoping motion under s. 17(50) of the Planning Act to approve the non-contentious portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 14 (OPA-14) and bring them into force.

The appellant consented to scoping its appeal to specific policies and schedules.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that bringing the non-contentious portions into force represents good planning, reduces unnecessary site-specific applications, and is consistent with provincial policies.

The motion was granted, and the non-contentious portions of OPA-14 were deemed in full force and effect.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Town opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the small-scale Main Street character and failed to conform to the Urban Structure.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development conforms to the Regional and Town Official Plans, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and achieves compatibility with the surrounding area through appropriate urban design, setbacks, and stepbacks.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its Final Order pending the finalization of the zoning instruments.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 12-storey purpose-built rental apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

The Tribunal denied a late party status request from adjacent landowners due to lack of specificity and failure to respond.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 21-storey and a 38-storey residential tower.

The parties settled all issues except whether a minimum non-residential gross floor area should be required.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert planning evidence that the site did not warrant a mandatory retail component and that the entirely residential development represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, approving the zoning by-law amendment without the non-residential gross floor area requirement.

The applicant requested a correction to the Tribunal's final order approving a zoning by-law amendment for the property at 135 Plunkett Road.

The approved by-law contained an inadvertent calculation error, listing the gross floor area as 13,060 square metres instead of the approved 14,219 square metres.

The Tribunal found this to be a minor calculation error within the intent of Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure and issued an order replacing the previously approved zoning by-law amendment with a corrected version.