Alan Barber

Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes (PATH) appealed the City's refusal of a Temporary Use By-law application to permit 24 transitional housing sleeping cabins on a property adjacent to an existing heavy industrial facility.

The central issue was whether the cabins should be classified as 'dwellings' or 'noise sensitive institutional purpose buildings' under provincial noise guidelines (NPC-300) for the purpose of determining land use compatibility.

The Tribunal found the cabins constituted dwellings, requiring more stringent noise mitigation.

Because the proposal introduced a sensitive land use immediately adjacent to a Class II industrial facility without adequate mitigation mechanisms, the Tribunal held it was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the City Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes against the City of Peterborough's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment for a transitional housing development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Toromont Industries Ltd. and participant status to several others on consent.

A Procedural Order was approved, and a 10-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in June 2025.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality for failing to approve a Site Plan agreement.

The parties requested a two-day hearing to resolve outstanding urban design and sanitary design issues.

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

The appellants appealed the City of Peterborough's Committee of Adjustment decision denying their consent and minor variance applications to create a new residential lot on an arterial road.

The Tribunal heard expert planning and transportation evidence from the City indicating the proposed development would create traffic safety issues due to inadequate vehicle turnaround space and would not conform to the Official Plan or Growth Plan.

The appellants provided no expert evidence to refute the City's experts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding the applications did not represent good land use planning and failed the four tests for a minor variance.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding an appeal by MacPherson Realty (Peterborough) Ltd. and others against the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

No requests for party or participant status were received.

The parties requested more time for settlement discussions and to finalize an Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for December 12, 2022, and provided directions for submitting materials if a settlement is reached or for setting a hearing date if not.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 45-unit residential development.

The City took no position on the proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan, and in keeping with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The appellant appealed the City of Peterborough's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an existing triplex.

The refusal was based on the Otonabee Region Conservation Authority's position that the property lacked safe access during a regulatory storm event, relying on 2014 draft flood plain mapping.

The Tribunal found that the 2014 flood lines had not been formally adopted into the City's Official Plan and were therefore not determinative.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's engineering evidence that ground-truthed the model using a 2004 storm event, demonstrating that the site has safe access appropriate for the nature of the development.

The appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant following the municipality's failure to render a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a high-density mixed-use development.

The municipality indicated it did not intend to participate.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two neighbouring residents, approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a one-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2160288 Ontario Inc. against the City of Peterborough's refusal to grant an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment for a high-density residential development.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a revised draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties to govern the upcoming 10-day hearing scheduled for January 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by 965 Chemong Road Investments Inc. concerning a site plan amendment application for 971 Chemong Rd in the City of Peterborough.

The appeal was filed under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act after the city council failed to make a decision within 30 days.

The order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, and procedural deadlines.

The applicant appealed the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a medium-density residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to an adjacent property owner.

The City indicated it would not take a position but would attend for information.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment sought to legalize an existing triplex located in a floodplain area.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicants sought to legalize an existing secondary suite constructed by a previous owner without a permit.

The chief building official issued a permit conditional on providing sound attenuation between the units.

The applicants disputed this requirement, arguing that Part 11 of the Building Code applied.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction.

The Building Code Commission held that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Building Code Act, 1992, because determining when the illegal unit was constructed is a mixed question of fact and law, not a dispute concerning the sufficiency of compliance with technical requirements.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and creed after his apartment was inspected following a fire in the unit above him.

He claimed the fire department targeted his unit because he grows medical marijuana, and that the Electrical Safety Authority and its employee discriminated against him during the subsequent electrical repair and reconnection process.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the applications, finding no reasonable prospect that the applicant could prove the respondents' actions were connected to his disability or creed rather than standard safety protocols.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application as moot.

He argued that the Tribunal failed to consider his written submissions, which he had attempted to email but were not received due to a delivery failure.

The Tribunal granted the request for reconsideration to consider the submissions as a matter of procedural fairness.

However, after reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found no basis to vary its original conclusion that the application was moot, as the applicant's allegations of prejudice due to delay were too remote and speculative.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination based on disability after being denied discretionary benefits for dentures because he was not considered 'employable' under the Ontario Works Act.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application as moot, noting that the applicant ultimately received funding for the dentures through another program and the municipality had since amended its policy to remove the employability requirement for dental benefits.

The Tribunal agreed, finding no live controversy remained between the parties and declining to exercise its discretion to hear a moot case.

The moving parties, two not-for-profit corporations in receivership, sought an interim order allowing their boards of directors to retain counsel for an appeal and directing that the legal fees be paid from the corporations' assets.

The motion judge had previously ruled the boards could not retain counsel without leave of the court or the receiver's approval.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, holding that the boards' right to pursue the appeal would be hollow without counsel, and ordered that reasonable legal fees be paid from the corporations' assets.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting Crown wardship leading to adoption with no access.

The appellants conceded that summary judgment was appropriate but argued it was unfair to proceed while the mother was unrepresented.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that wardship leading to adoption with access was not possible under the legislation and not in the child's best interests.