N. Eisazadeh

The Claimant sought compensation for injurious affection after the Ministry of Transportation closed one of two accesses to its mixed-use property during highway improvements.

The Ministry argued the closed access and the commercial use of the property were illegal, precluding compensation.

The Tribunal found that the access and commercial use were legal and grandfathered.

Applying the test for injurious affection where no land is taken, the Tribunal awarded the Claimant $149,160 based on a 'cost to cure' approach to construct an internal loop driveway, plus $27,500 for disturbance damages.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that included the removal of a contested woodlot, supported by uncontroverted expert ecological and planning evidence indicating the woodlot was in poor health and its removal would not negatively impact the broader natural heritage system.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposal consistent with provincial policy, representative of good planning, and in the public interest.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an aggregate extraction operation.

At a second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered whether to schedule a merit hearing or await the referral of a related licensing application under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal declined to set hearing dates, finding it appropriate to schedule a third CMC to allow time for the related matter to be referred and consolidated, thereby ensuring an efficient and comprehensive hearing.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes' 2012 Official Plan and Secondary Plans.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of several appeals and directed the merging of the Phase 5 and Phase 7 hearings.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and set dates for the merged five-week hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the development of a six-storey, 23-unit apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions in parking requirements, an increase in maximum residential density, and a reduction in the minimum rear setback.

The City took no position on the appeal.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of Provincial interest, and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 294 (Dufferin Street Secondary Plan) and the City's failure to make a decision on a site-specific Official Plan Amendment application for a mixed-use redevelopment.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the secondary plan policies and mapping.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement modifications consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the modifications, without prejudice to a remaining site-specific appeal by another party.

The appellants appealed the City of Guelph's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit the redevelopment of a brownfield site.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Canadian National Railway Company and a local residents' association, and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to finalize an Issues List and Procedural Order, and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing.

A case management conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes' 2012 Official Plan and its Secondary Plans.

The Tribunal received status updates on the remaining phases of the appeals, noting the withdrawal of certain appeals and the closure of the Phase 6 hearing file.

The Tribunal directed the parties to work collaboratively to prepare a final procedural order and issues list for the Phase 5 hearing, and scheduled a further case management conference to set hearing dates and address outstanding matters.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for directions seeking an adjournment sine die of site-specific appeals by 955 Weston and CP REIT regarding Official Plan Amendment 571 (Mount Dennis Secondary Plan).

The appellants consented to the adjournment subject to agreed terms.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it efficient and without prejudice.

A request to consolidate Trolleybus's appeal with its other site-specific appeals was deferred to a future case management conference.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the City of Ottawa on a zoning by-law amendment that required the waste storage area for a proposed residential addition to be located within the principal building.

The appellant argued for an external enclosed accessory building for waste storage.

The Tribunal found that the internal option would require an external lift, increase costs, reduce the size of barrier-free units, and result in a sub-optimal basement unit.

The Tribunal concluded that the external enclosed option represented better land use planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the condition was removed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 12-storey mid-rise building, which included the replacement of 68 existing rental units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until the final form of the by-law and related rental housing agreements are secured.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers against the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals on consent of the parties.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on April 15, 2024, by video.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal granted a consent order to consolidate the two appeals due to commonality and overlapping issues.

The Tribunal also set dates for a 15-day merit hearing and directed the parties to file a final procedural order and issues list.

The City of Kawartha Lakes brought a motion for partial approval of Phase 4 appeals concerning Official Plan Amendments 13 and 16, which implement the Lindsay Secondary Plan.

The parties reached a settlement on the proposed policy and mapping modifications.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modifications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represent good planning.

To avoid potential policy conflicts between the new Secondary Plan and the existing Town of Lindsay Official Plan, the Tribunal ordered that its final approval be withheld until the Minister formally repeals the existing plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant consent to sever a residential lot into two parcels and authorize minor variances for reduced lot width, reduced lot area, and double-wide driveways.

The proposed development involved constructing two detached dwellings, each with a secondary basement unit.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and met the statutory tests under the Planning Act for both consent and minor variances.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the infill development represented good planning and was compatible with the evolving character of the neighbourhood.

The appellant community association appealed the City of Ottawa's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to permit a six-storey residential care facility.

The appellant argued that the Future Land Use Study was incomplete from a transportation perspective and that the development was premature due to existing transportation deficiencies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on traffic, that the developer is not responsible for fixing existing municipal transportation deficiencies, and that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the Town of Innisfil Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variance applications to permit a third accessory dwelling unit and to allow an existing unit with a reduced gross floor area.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances were consistent with provincial policies, maintained the general intent of the official plans 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 a tree preservation condition.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's decision regarding the cash-in-lieu fee contribution for parkland under section 42(10) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted that no requests for party or participant status were received.

The parties presented a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which were finalized with the Tribunal's assistance.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing to resolve the appeal.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for two industrial buildings.

The Region of Halton sought and was granted party status on consent, as the subject property accesses a regional road and is subject to the regional official plan.

The Tribunal approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a two-day video hearing on the merits.

At a third Case Management Conference for an appeal under the Conservation Authorities Act, the Tribunal addressed scheduling and procedural issues arising from an increased number of proposed witnesses.

The Tribunal granted extensions to the procedural order timetable, scheduled a 12-day merit hearing, and directed that three preliminary motions regarding witness summons and evidence be heard in writing prior to the hearing.