S. Mann

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the City of London following a successful appeal of a minor variance refusal.

The applicant argued the City's conduct was unreasonable for defending the refusal without expert planning evidence and taking an untenable position.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's motion, finding the City's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The Tribunal granted the City's request for costs of the motion, ordering the applicant to pay $2,000 plus HST, as the applicant's motion materials were deficient and failed to properly apply the legislative test for costs.

The appellants appealed the Township's denial of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on private services on a 2.96-acre conditionally severed lot.

The subject property was designated 'Future Development' and located at the edge of the urban boundary.

The Township argued the development was premature pending a Municipal Comprehensive Review and that higher density was required.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the appellants' planning evidence that the development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and would not impede future orderly development of the larger retained parcel.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Berkeley Carlyle (Junction) Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application seeks to permit the construction of two residential buildings and an office building.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a six-day video hearing to commence on April 15, 2024.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that facilitated a mixed-use development with affordable housing.

The City argued the appeal should be dismissed without a hearing under section 34(25) of the Planning Act because it failed to disclose any valid land use planning grounds.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant's concerns lacked sufficient planning rationale and dismissed the appeal without a hearing.

The appellant municipality and an individual appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a consent to sever a residential property to create a new lot.

The municipality argued the severance did not conform to its Official Plan regarding neighbourhood character and lot fabric.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed lot frontage was significantly narrower than the established neighbourhood lot fabric.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the provisional consent, finding it did not satisfy section 51(24)(c) of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent for the creation of two residential lots, arguing that the proposed lots did not meet the required setback from his adjacent industrial property.

The Tribunal found that the proposed consent conformed with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal also determined that there was sufficient space within the proposed parcels to maintain the required 70-metre setback from the industrial use.

The appeal was dismissed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application for a 12-storey mixed-use development within the statutory timeframe.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal held a written hearing to consider the agreed-upon draft Notice of Approval Conditions.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the site plan and proposed conditions satisfied the requirements of the City of Toronto Act and conformed to applicable planning policies.

The Tribunal approved the site plan in principle, withholding its final order until all pre-approval conditions are met.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to allow outdoor storage on the subject property for a temporary period of three years.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the conditions agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement.

The County of Grey appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent for a lot boundary adjustment without a requested road-widening condition.

The applicant sought to convey an existing driveway to an abutting parcel.

The County requested a 5.182-metre road widening along Alfred Street West, consistent with its Official Plan policies for future growth and infrastructure expansion.

The Tribunal adopted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the road widening was required and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed, and provisional consent was granted subject to the road widening condition.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of an addition to an existing duplex to create a fourplex.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement modifying one of the parking area setback variances.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment intended to permit a cemetery and accessory uses on the subject property.

The Tribunal granted provisional participant status to one individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 17-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal also consolidated the two appeals but declined to consolidate an older, closed appeal pending further submissions from the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury to permit a cemetery and accessory uses on prime agricultural lands.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to four individuals on consent.

The Tribunal also consolidated the matter with an outstanding Ontario Municipal Board appeal and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Urban Capital Harbour (Marlee) Inc. for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant had revised its proposal to a 12-storey residential building with 362 units.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a seven-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants due to the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications for a proposed 24-storey mixed-use building and 9-storey apartment building.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner, scheduled a 10-day hearing, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to increase the maximum lot coverage for an accessory building from 10% to 14.5% to construct a detached garage.

The municipality did not participate in the appeal.

Relying on the municipal staff report, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting it was consistent with provincial policy, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable, and minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The applicant appealed a decision of the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances required to construct a four-storey apartment building while retaining existing heritage buildings.

The requested variances included a reduced rear yard setback, increased building height, and reduced parking ratios.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policies encouraging intensification and transit-oriented development, and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application for a 25-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to two adjacent property owners.

The parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled to provide a status update on the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the required amenity area for a high-rise student housing development.

The variance became necessary after the appellant converted rooming units to dwelling units by adding kitchens and bathrooms, which increased the amenity space requirement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, adopting the uncontested expert planning evidence that the reduction maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature given the proximity to downtown amenities and the University of Ottawa.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Berkeley Carlyle (Junction) Inc. for a Zoning By-law Amendment due to the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision.

The applicant submitted a revised proposal increasing building heights in response to Official Plan Amendment No. 537.

The parties requested a third CMC to allow the City to complete its review process and determine if a settlement can be reached.

The Tribunal scheduled the third CMC for October 25, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant under section 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The parties advised that minutes of settlement had been reached with the municipality, but discussions with the added party were ongoing.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day video hearing.