Susan de Avellar Schiller

The applicant sought costs against a self-represented party and the Region of Peel following a hearing on the merits of an official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeal.

The applicant argued both parties maintained issues on the Issues List but failed to call expert evidence.

The Tribunal denied costs against the self-represented party, finding she acted in good faith and made reasonable efforts.

However, the Tribunal awarded $5,000 in costs against the Region of Peel, finding its deliberate failure to comply with the procedural order and late abandonment of issues constituted unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct.

The applicants and the City of Vaughan brought motions for costs against the appellants, Humberplex Developments Inc. and Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc., following the dismissal of their appeals regarding Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48.

The costs motions primarily related to a motion to strike brought by the appellants, which sought to exclude expert planning evidence based on hearsay and innuendo regarding alleged bias and improper influence.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' conduct in bringing the motion to strike was unreasonable and warranted an award of costs.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in costs to the applicants and $20,000 to the City, payable primarily by Humberplex.

Appeals were brought against the Town of Innisfil's Official Plan regarding the designation of certain lands.

DLR appealed the Agricultural Area designation on its lands, seeking a Rural Area designation to permit development.

Nextnine appealed the Key Natural Heritage Features designation on its lands, seeking a Parks and Open Space designation to permit a golf course expansion.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding that the Town's designations were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, conformed to the Growth Plan 2020, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and the County of Simcoe Official Plan.

The claimant filed a Notice of Arbitration and Statement of Claim under the Expropriations Act against the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties subsequently engaged in private mediation and settlement discussions, ultimately reaching a settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that a previous dismissal order be rescinded and the file be closed pursuant to the claimant's advice that the matter had settled.

The applicant and the City of Mississauga requested an amendment to the Tribunal's previous order issued on August 10, 2021, to correct an error in a zoning standard.

The original order mistakenly required a minimum setback of 2.5m for below grade parking structures instead of the intended 0.9m.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the replacement of Attachment 'B' to reflect the correct setback.

Homestead Land Holdings Limited appealed the City of Kingston's failure to make a decision on site-specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit two high-rise mixed-use developments on brownfield sites in the downtown North Block.

The City and Homestead subsequently reached a settlement supporting revised proposals.

The Frontenac Heritage Foundation opposed the developments, arguing they would adversely impact nearby heritage conservation districts and character areas due to their height and visual intrusion.

The Tribunal found the revised proposals compatible with the surrounding built form, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, noting the sites were designated for major development and intensification.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

In an appeal concerning an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a medical centre, the applicant brought a motion for directions to exclude three affidavits filed by the appellant Medical Centre.

The Tribunal found that the issues of conformity with the regional and municipal official plans were relevant, and therefore the affidavits addressing those issues were relevant and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered that the affidavits, along with responding affidavits from the Town and the applicant, be admitted as evidence for the hearing of the merits.

The appellant appealed the City of Niagara Falls' adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 127 and an implementing zoning by-law, which permitted Vacation Rental Units (VRUs) as-of-right in certain commercial zones but required site-specific amendments for residential zones.

The appellant argued VRUs should be permitted as-of-right in residential zones.

The Tribunal found that the City's approach appropriately balanced the need to support the tourism industry with the obligation to provide a range and mix of housing for residents.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the instruments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and in conformity with the Growth Plan 2019, the Region of Niagara Official Plan, and the City's Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a townhouse development.

The Tribunal previously granted approval in a March 2020 decision but withheld its final order pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The conditions having been met, the Tribunal issued its final order amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellants appealed the City of Thunder Bay's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 69, which provided a site-specific exemption to reduce the minimum lot frontage requirement for the applicants' property.

The appellants raised concerns regarding flooding, alternative arrangements for a second dwelling, and an official plan bar on certain lot enlargements.

The Tribunal found that these concerns were premised on a potential future development or severance application, which was not before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal concluded that the site-specific amendment regarding lot frontage was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and had regard for matters of provincial interest.

The appeal was dismissed and the amendment was approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident.

As the parties were unable to reach a settlement, the Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 486 (King Spadina Secondary Plan).

Four non-appellant property owners requested party status.

The Tribunal found that three owners had a direct interest and added them as parties, contingent on filing a list of issues to shelter under.

A fourth owner, who did not make submissions prior to the OPA's adoption, was also added as a party because they owned lands within the OPA area and were directly affected.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a final draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the Township's adoption of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted a food distribution warehouse on rural lands partially within a floodplain.

The appellant raised concerns regarding natural heritage, traffic safety, and the lack of an Environmental Impact Study or hydrogeological study.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development was not within or adjacent to natural heritage features requiring an EIS, and that the site's location near a highway interchange was appropriate for transport-related uses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the by-law was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the official plan.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48, which redesignate lands for the residential redevelopment of a golf course, part of which is within the Greenbelt Plan boundary.

The appellants argued the amendments were premature and raised concerns regarding need, stormwater management, compatibility, and transportation.

The Tribunal found that the phased planning approach was appropriate and that the amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Region's Official Plan, and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

The applicants sought a minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback to construct a garden room addition replacing an existing deck.

The Committee of Adjustment authorized the variance.

A neighbour appealed, arguing the variance was not needed, not minor, and would set a precedent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding it met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also denied the applicants' request for costs, finding the appellant's conduct was reasonable and appropriate.

The proponent sought various instruments and undertakings for the extension of the Acton Quarry.

Following an interim decision approving the undertakings and a deferral of the Environmental Compliance Approval and Permit to Take Water to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change, the proponent confirmed there were no inconsistencies between the draft Ministry instruments and the Board's approvals.

The Board issued its final decision confirming the interim decision.

The proponent sought approval for various instruments and undertakings required for the extension of the Acton Quarry.

Following extensive review and consultation, the public agencies and the proponent reached an agreement on modifications and conditions to protect natural heritage and water resources.

The Board reviewed the planning instruments, including official plan amendments, zoning by-laws, and the aggregate extraction licence, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The undertakings were approved.

A second prehearing was held regarding Dufferin Aggregates' proposed extension of the Acton Quarry.

On consent of all parties, the Joint Board deferred consideration of the Permit to take Water and Environmental Compliance Approval to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, pursuant to s. 5(3) of the Consolidated Hearings Act.

The Board also varied the procedural schedule for serving and filing expert witness statements and related materials.

This was the first appearance before the Joint Board regarding Dufferin Aggregates' proposed extension of the Acton Quarry.

The Board granted participant status to several individuals and one non-profit group, and set procedural directions and dates for the hearing of the merits.