S.L. Dionne

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 3300 Rutherford Developments Inc. for the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, noted ongoing without-prejudice discussions between the parties, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for January 16, 2025.

The applicant appealed the Town of Huntsville's decision regarding a Community Planning Permit application to recognize existing non-complying structures and to permit the construction of a boat launch and access path.

The Town had provisionally approved the existing structures subject to conditions requiring the removal of a deck and obtaining building permits, but denied the boat launch proposal due to concerns about environmental impacts on a wetland and fish habitat.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, granting final approval to recognize the existing structures without the Town's conditions, finding them unnecessary and inappropriate.

The Tribunal also granted provisional approval for the boat launch, subject to conditions including the completion of an Environmental Impact Study and obtaining necessary approvals from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The appellant appealed the conditional approval of a development permit to re-establish an institutional use (elementary school) on the subject property.

At the Case Management Conference, the appellant clarified his concerns related to the Niagara Escarpment Commission's public notice procedures rather than the permit itself.

The appellant subsequently withdrew his appeal.

Pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the decision to conditionally approve the development permit was deemed confirmed.

The appellants appealed the City of Richmond Hill's Community Benefits Charge By-law No. 99-22, raising concerns about the definitions of 'Value of Land' and 'Development' and the application of the charge to existing buildings and phased developments.

Following the enactment of Bill 23, which amended section 37 of the Planning Act, the parties reached a settlement and modified the By-law to conform with the new legislation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence in land economics and land use planning, finding that the modified By-law complies with the Planning Act, is consistent with provincial policies, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to amend the By-law accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge's refusal to adopt Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to facilitate the redevelopment of a property with two 3-storey stacked townhouse buildings containing 32 units.

The City initially refused the applications due to concerns over the displacement of existing tenants.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed intensification within the built-up area is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to regional and local plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed the City of London's failure to make a decision on a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision within the prescribed timeframe under s. 51(34) of the Planning Act.

At a scheduled settlement hearing, the parties advised they were not ready to proceed due to the appellant's failure to file a revised proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order imposing strict deadlines for document exchange and the scheduling of a future hearing.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Site Plan to permit a four-building residential redevelopment.

The parties reached a settlement, which City Council approved in principle.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part on an interim basis, approving the draft Zoning By-law Amendment in principle subject to conditions.

The subdivision and site plan appeals were adjourned sine die.

The parties reached a settlement regarding appeals of a proposed residential development within the Village of Churchville Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence that the settlement proposal represents good land use planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and local official plans.

The Tribunal dismissed the heritage appeals, approved the draft plan of subdivision, and amended the zoning by-law to facilitate the development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order following a case management conference regarding appeals of the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendments (OPA) 142, 143, and 144.

The Tribunal ordered that the OPAs came into effect on May 9, 2024, except for the specific policies and schedules under appeal.

The order clarified that the partial approval is without prejudice to the appellants' rights to seek modifications or the City's right to defend the approved sections on a site-specific basis.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Region of Peel's approval of Official Plan Amendments 142, 143, and 144 to the City of Mississauga's Official Plan, which relate to Major Transit Station Areas.

The Tribunal granted Observing Party status to the Region of Peel, Non-Appellant Party status to Hensall Holdings and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and Participant status to Trillium Health Partners.

A motion by the City to confirm the scope of the appeals and bring unappealed portions of the OPAs into effect was adjourned to allow the parties time to review a revised draft order and compendium.

The appellant appealed the City of London's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment concerning the redevelopment of a former cookie factory into a mixed-use residential and commercial community.

Following a settlement between the parties, the appellant withdrew the appeal of the Official Plan Amendment, bringing it into effect.

The Tribunal approved the modified Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, as it facilitates appropriate intensification, a range of housing types, and the adaptive reuse of a heritage building.

The appellant appealed the City of London's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as well as the failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit the redevelopment of a former cookie factory into a mixed-use community.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the appellant withdrew the OPA appeal, and the Tribunal approved the ZBLA in principle based on uncontested expert planning evidence.

The ZBLA facilitates a mix of residential and commercial uses, including seniors' housing and the adaptive reuse of a heritage building.

The Draft Plan of Subdivision appeal was adjourned to a future settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town of The Blue Mountains for failing to make decisions on a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two local residents, approved the final Procedural Order on consent, and scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence in February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by First Capital Holdings against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted joint party status to two residents' organizations and participant status to a condominium corporation.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduling a nine-day video hearing on the merits for April 2025.

The appellant appealed a site-specific zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Port Colborne to facilitate a residential subdivision, arguing that the existing wastewater infrastructure lacked capacity and that a holding zone provision should have been applied.

The developer brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal found that the adequacy of wastewater servicing had been appropriately considered and addressed through conditions of draft plan approval, which fall under the Region's jurisdiction.

Concluding that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on its zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications for a 46-storey mixed-use building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

This decision arises from a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and entities without objection from the parties.

The parties advised the Tribunal of an ongoing settlement proposal that City Council has accepted.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the hearing.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 58-storey residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle subject to the fulfillment of conditions, and adjourned the site plan appeal sine die.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 8-storey residential building with ground-floor commercial space.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a vacant lot located within a floodplain and riverine erosion hazard area.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the control of flooding and erosion under O Reg 166/06.

Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the proposed development was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, as it would be located within a floodway and lacked safe access for vehicles and pedestrians during a flood event.

The Tribunal also found the proposal inconsistent with the conservation authority's internal policies prohibiting new development in flood hazards.

The appeal was dismissed.