S. Jacobs

The respondent school board expropriated 18 townhouses to facilitate a school site expansion.

The Tribunal received 15 claims for compensation and convened a Case Management Conference.

The parties agreed to have the claims heard together in a single six-week hearing for efficiency.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and a second Case Management Conference, and provided directions for a revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 39 appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 525 and associated zoning by-law amendments, which adopted a new secondary plan for the King-Parliament area.

The Tribunal addressed administrative matters including the withdrawal of certain appeals, the substitution of new property owners for existing appeals, and the splitting of an appeal.

The Tribunal also granted party status to two landowners.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for May 19, 2022, to establish a Procedural Order and issues list, and to allow parties time for mediation and settlement discussions.

The claimant sought $150,000 in damages for injurious affection, alleging business losses due to the temporary closure of an intersection during the construction of the Rt.

Hon. Herb Gray Parkway.

Following a period of inactivity and missed status hearings, the Tribunal convened a status hearing at the mutual request of the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing for April 2022 and issued procedural directions for the exchange of witness statements and a joint document book.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 14-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring business concerned with compatibility.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day hearing and directed the parties to finalize a procedural order and issues list following an anticipated direction report from City council.

The applicant sought costs of $109,056.02 against the Town following successful appeals to amend a zoning by-law and approve a site plan.

The applicant alleged the Town engaged in unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith conduct by delaying its issues list, enacting an interim control by-law to seek adjournments, and failing to present evidence at the hearing.

The Tribunal found no clearly unreasonable conduct, noting the issues list was submitted on time, the adjournment requests were brought with notice and raised substantive issues, and the failure to call witnesses avoided duplication and made for a more efficient hearing.

The motion for costs was denied.

The applicants sought to sever their property and obtained provisional consent and minor variances from the Committee of Adjustment.

The City subsequently amended its Zoning By-law, rendering the variances unnecessary.

The Committee then changed a condition of the consent to reflect compliance with the amended by-law, deeming the change minor.

The appellant appealed both the minor variance and the change of condition.

The applicants brought a motion to dismiss the appeals.

The Tribunal found the Change of Condition Appeal invalid because the Planning Act does not provide an appeal right for changes deemed minor.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Minor Variance Appeal as moot and lacking any land use planning grounds, since the variances were no longer required.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the municipality to facilitate the development of apartment buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal of one 3-storey apartment building with 41 units, requiring an amendment to permit front yard parking.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The claimants sought compensation for the market value of land taken by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo for a light rail transit project, as well as disturbance damages and injurious affection for business losses.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to establish a procedural timetable and schedule the hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to adhere to the agreed-upon timetable and scheduled a nine-day hearing to commence on November 7, 2022.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a six-storey self-storage building and a restaurant on an arterial mainstreet.

The City argued the site was a gateway and the use was inappropriate as it lacked residential development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence that the development introduces an innovative mix of uses, improves the public realm, and represents an efficient intensification of an underutilized site.

The Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and consent to sever, as well as its failure to make a decision on a site plan application.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and scheduled an eight-day hearing for July 2022, allowing time for a related heritage matter to be resolved.

A Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County of Oxford's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment that would permit the creation of two new residential lots in a prime agricultural area.

The property owners sought the severance despite the land being designated as prime agricultural land.

The Tribunal found that the OPA was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which strictly prohibits residential lot creation in prime agricultural areas except for a residence surplus to a farming operation due to farm consolidation.

The appeal was allowed and the OPA was not approved.

The new owner of a subject property brought a motion to be substituted as the appellant in appeals originally filed by a now-bankrupt developer regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The municipality and conservation authority brought a joint motion to dismiss the appeals due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the original appellant did not have a valid appeal of the new Official Plan because it failed to make the required statutory submissions.

The Tribunal denied the substitution motion, finding that allowing the new owner to carry on the delayed appeals under an outdated planning policy framework would cause prejudice to the parties and the public interest that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis of delay.

The appellants appealed the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission to construct a residential building on their property located in a floodplain.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to determine the format and scheduling of the hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing and issued directions for the exchange of materials prior to the hearing.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on its site plan application for a 13-storey apartment building.

The parties had previously settled related official plan and zoning by-law appeals.

At the scheduled settlement hearing for the site plan appeal, the parties advised they had not yet finalized the site plan conditions and requested more time.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter and scheduled a new settlement hearing by telephone conference call.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Windsor to allow a 96-unit condominium development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the developer, noted that three individuals seeking party status would instead testify as witnesses for the appellant, and scheduled a two-day hearing.

A Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceeding.

The claimant, a restaurant and bar, sought compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act, alleging that the City's streetscape improvement project caused substantial and unreasonable interference with its business.

The claimant argued that construction noise, dust, and restricted pedestrian and vehicular access led to significant business losses.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for private nuisance from Antrim, finding that while the interference was substantial, it was not unreasonable.

The Tribunal noted that reasonable access was maintained at all times, the City's conduct in managing the project and accommodating the business was reasonable, and the downtown commercial character of the neighbourhood meant some construction disruption was to be expected.

The claim was dismissed.