Sharon L. Dionne

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to rezone a property from Tourist Commercial to Residential Shoreline Special Exception.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a single-detached dwelling and two accessory structures with specific height, size, and use restrictions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and directed the Township to amend the Zoning By-law, accepting uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conform to the applicable Official Plans, and represent good land use planning.

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment to legalize an existing home-based business.

At the first Case Management Conference, the statutory parties requested a deferral of procedural matters to continue ongoing mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request, declined to adjourn the proceeding, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider a request for party status and set hearing dates if mediation is unsuccessful.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second 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 draft plan of subdivision for an industrial subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals on consent.

The parties agreed to seek a Tribunal-led mediation assessment and submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference for November 2026 and a nine-day hearing on the merits for February 2027.

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit the development of seven townhouse dwellings.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontradicted expert planning evidence supporting the proposed amendments.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding the amendments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with the applicable Official Plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The applications seek to facilitate an industrial subdivision.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed interested individuals to submit requests for Participant status, scheduled a second CMC, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to reduce the minimum lot width requirement from 10.5 metres to 7.6 metres.

The variances were sought to permit a pair of semi-detached dwellings, each containing three additional dwelling units, for a total of eight units on the property.

The Tribunal found that while the proposal maintained the general intent of the Official Plan regarding intensification, it failed the remaining three parts of the minor variance test.

Specifically, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed tandem parking arrangement was not functional or appropriate, and the variances did not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law, were not desirable, and were not minor.

The Municipality of Thames Centre and the County of Middlesex brought an uncontested motion for directions to approve certain modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 27 (OPA 27).

The modifications resolved the appeal by Fred Jamieson regarding Additional Residential Units and re-designated specific lands from Agricultural to Rural Industrial.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modifications were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the modifications and brought into effect the policies not subject to the remaining appeal by Sifton Properties Limited, which was adjourned sine die.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying four of five requested minor variances to permit the construction of a new residential dwelling on a proposed severed lot.

The Ontario Land Tribunal evaluated the variances against the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed dwelling was too large for the severed corner lot, which would be the smallest on the street, and that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Livingston Realty Holdings Inc. concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 35-storey residential building.

On consent of the statutory parties, the Tribunal granted party status to Scarboro Golf & Country Club and participant status to an adjacent resident.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing for August 2026 and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a two-tower residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual on consent.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and the Tribunal scheduled a nine-day hearing on the merits for June 2026.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to facilitate the development of two 14-storey mixed-use buildings.

Following an interim decision that allowed the appeals in part based on a settlement, the parties advised that the pre-requisite conditions had been satisfied.

Relying on supplemental expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in the public interest.

The Tribunal issued a final order amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's refusal to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 13-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 11-storey residential building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the York Region and City of Markham Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1334281 Ontario Limited against the City of Pickering's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several local residents on consent.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled for April 2026, and a Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the passing of Zoning By-law No. 1260-2024, which enacted city-wide as-of-right zoning for mid-rise buildings on avenues.

On consent, the City brought a motion to scope the appeal geographically to the appellant's property at 2850 Kingston Road and for partial approval of the by-law.

The Tribunal granted the motion, scoping the appeal and deeming the unappealed portions of the by-law to have come into force on the day it was passed.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Ottawa's non-decision on a site plan application for a 94-unit townhome development.

The parties advised that a recent zoning by-law amendment resolved most issues, leaving only parkland in dispute.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to provide a status update on settlement discussions.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3-storey mixed-use building with 42 residential units and ground-floor commercial space.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised development concept.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a wedding and event venue as an agri-tourism use in a rural area.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested additional time for their planners to discuss the matter following the applicants' retention of new counsel and a new planner.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for December 1, 2025, to monitor progress and potentially finalize a Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying certain minor variances required to facilitate the severance of a lot and the construction of a new dwelling and carriage house in a Heritage Conservation District.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving revised building elevations and driveway configurations.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Municipality of Clarington's Official Plan Amendment No. 136, which updates the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan.

The parties agreed on all procedural matters and requested a second CMC to allow time for further discussions to scope and potentially resolve the issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for November 24, 2025, and deferred consideration of requests for non-appellant party status until that time.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to enact an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 45-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement proposal, which included the partial retention and adaptive reuse of a heritage building on the site.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with provincial policy and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until certain conditions, including a heritage easement agreement and functional servicing report, were satisfied.