Yasna Faghani

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision and condominium, specifically a condition prohibiting rooftop patios.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that removed rooftop patios on specific units and required maximum-height fencing to address overlook concerns.

The Tribunal denied participant status to a non-resident and approved the settlement, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the expansion of a retirement home.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving design changes to increase planting buffers and protect mature trees.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, finding it consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the new Official Plan for the Township of Clearview.

One appellant reached a settlement in principle, and the Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider it.

The remaining appellants requested a further Case Management Conference to continue settlement discussions and address technical issues.

The Tribunal granted the requests and scheduled a third Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application seeking to legalize existing residential buildings and accessory structures on a shoreline property.

The Township argued the application was incomplete and lacked an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and a Drainage Plan.

The Tribunal found that the Township's Official Plan strictly requires an EIS for development on adjacent lands to evaluate impacts on natural features.

However, based on uncontested expert evidence, the Tribunal found no unacceptable adverse stormwater impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in principle, withholding its final order until the applicant provides a scoped EIS and grading plans to the Township's satisfaction.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tay Valley's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the demolition of a cottage and construction of a year-round dwelling.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

A two-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for November 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 19-storey rental apartment building located within a Major Transit Station Area and the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.

The City and a neighbourhood association opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the heritage character and too tall for the site.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, as it directs intensification to an underutilized site near transit.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence that the building's design mitigates adverse impacts on privacy, overlook, and cultural heritage resources, and meets the overall intent of the City's Urban Design Manual and Heritage District Plan.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the demolition of a cottage and construction of a year-round dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant requested that hearing dates be scheduled immediately, while the Township requested a second CMC to allow time to secure a planning witness.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for four weeks later to balance the applicant's desire to proceed with the Township's need to identify its witness and finalize the issues list.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the municipality's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law amendment for a mixed-use residential development.

Following a public hearing, the Tribunal directed the submission of a draft Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal ordered that the submitted Procedural Order is in full force and effect to govern the upcoming hearing.

The applicants appealed a minor variance decision regarding the construction of a single-detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised plans that removed a rear yard cabana structure.

Based on the uncontroverted planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions, including the protection of existing cedar hedges.

The applicants appealed the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make a decision regarding official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision applications for a proposed high-rise development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham on consent.

The Tribunal denied a party status request from a neighboring developer, granting participant status instead, as the primary concern regarding building height would be adequately addressed by the municipalities.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-week merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for a mixed-use residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List by May 8, 2025.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in September 2025.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a 69-unit residential development, the Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation requested party status to address flood plain protection issues.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing it would duplicate efforts, while the Town and County supported it.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Foundation, finding it had key interests and its intended expert evidence was necessary.

Participant status was also granted on consent to three individuals.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicants appealed the refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 19-unit townhome development in the Municipality of North Perth.

The parties reached an uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the County of Perth Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments.

The applicant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications for provisional consent and minor variances to sever a lot and build two single-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the requested variances for lot frontage, area, coverage, and height met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting the absence of evidence demonstrating adverse impacts.

The appeals were allowed, and the consent and variances were approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the County of Renfrew's refusal of an application for provisional consent to sever a vacant residential lot from a rural property.

The County denied the application because the applicant refused to provide a hydrogeological assessment and a noise impact study.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance without the required studies was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, and did not conform to the County's Official Plan, which explicitly mandates these studies for lots under 1 hectare or within 250 metres of a highway.

The appeal was dismissed and provisional consent was denied.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a nine-storey residential building within the statutory timeframe.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they had made progress but a dispute remained regarding road widening.

The Tribunal initially scheduled a three-day merit hearing, but at the parties' request, converted it to a one-day telephone case conference to allow for further settlement discussions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a 2-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to the front and rear yard setbacks, an increase in lot coverage, and an increase in rear yard projection.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, finding that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and did not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed medium-density residential development, including an eight-storey apartment building and stacked townhouses.

The City opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the neighbourhood character and would cause adverse shadow impacts on an adjacent school yard.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the development integrates well with the surrounding area, meets the City's Sun Shadow Guidelines, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and represents good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the Town of Hearst's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a salvage yard.

At the first Case Management Conference, it was determined that proper notice had not been served by the applicant.

A further CMC was scheduled, with the Town agreeing to serve notice.

Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the appeal, and the Tribunal closed the file.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a residential dwelling with reduced Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from neighbouring livestock facilities.

The subject property is zoned Agricultural but is unsuitable for farming due to its topography.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the applicants and neighbours are Old Order Mennonites accustomed to farming odours.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions requiring a development agreement with an odour warning clause and written acknowledgements from neighbouring farm owners.