Alexandra Whyte

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to permit the severance of a corner lot and the construction of semi-detached dwellings with additional residential units.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, granting provisional consent and authorizing variances for lot area, frontage, coverage, exterior side yard setback, and eave height, finding they met the tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and respected the neighbourhood's eclectic character.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance to reduce the required parking spaces from two to one, citing a lack of justification and potential neighbourhood impact.

The Tribunal also upheld a standard municipal condition requiring an acoustical report due to the property's proximity to railway tracks.

St. Rita at Marylake Long Term Care Home brought a motion for costs against Save The Oak Ridges Moraine and Kingscross Ratepayers Association following the dismissal of their application for leave to appeal a Permit to Take Water.

St. Rita argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, and brought solely to delay the development of a long-term care facility.

The Tribunal found that while the leave application was unsuccessful and partly raised issues outside its jurisdiction, the appellants' conduct did not meet the threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motion for costs was denied.

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

The parties reached a settlement for a nine-storey apartment building with 252 units.

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

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit five high-rise towers.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the parties were engaged in without prejudice discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 19, 2026, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a four-storey mixed-use building on a consolidated parcel following a land swap.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Regional and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part to implement the settlement and dismissed the subdivision appeal on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Friday Harbour Resort Holdings Inc. for a proposed resort development in the Town of Innisfil.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several individuals and entities on consent.

A procedural order was issued to govern the upcoming 15-day video hearing scheduled for May 2026.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning the failure of the City of Pickering to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a high-density mixed-use development, the Tribunal granted party status to Emix Ltd. on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that these appeals be heard together with related site-specific appeals, as the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement in principle.

A written settlement hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the Town of Erin's Development Charges By-law 24-35.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order, including an Issues List and Order of Evidence, to govern the proceedings leading up to a 9-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 3, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the respondent municipality's new Parkland Dedication By-law.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a 10-day Merit Hearing to commence by video on July 6, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1334281 Ontario Limited against the City of Pickering's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several local residents on consent.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled for April 2026, and a Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Friday Harbour Resort Holdings Inc. against the Town of Innisfil's failure to make a decision on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Simcoe and eleven individuals forming the Friday Harbour Focus Group, and participant status to nine individuals.

A second Case Management Conference and a 15-day Merit Hearing were scheduled.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Heritage Heights Secondary Plan.

The parties reached an uncontested written settlement concerning the Special Policy Area 1 Lands, proposing site-specific modifications to allow for a high-density, mixed-use community.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeal was granted in part, and the modified Secondary Plan was approved, save for one deferred area.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications propose a 14-unit freehold townhouse development.

The parties agreed to scope the issues, reducing the required Merit Hearing from seven to five days.

The Tribunal scheduled the Merit Hearing and directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for Site Plan Approval and a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 78-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement resolving outstanding engineering matters through a single set of conditions of approval.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with applicable Official Plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the site plan and draft plan of subdivision subject to the agreed conditions.

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law designating a historic former town hall as a property of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued he did not receive notice of the intention to designate and raised structural concerns about the building.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's evidence regarding lack of notice and found the structural engineering evidence irrelevant to the heritage designation.

Relying on the uncontested expert heritage evidence provided by the municipality, the Tribunal found the property met the prescribed criteria for designation.

The appeal was allowed in part only to amend the by-law's statement of cultural heritage value to correct historical inaccuracies, and was otherwise dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Erin's Development Charges By-law 24-35.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing of the merits to commence on December 1, 2025, by video hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Georgina's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 380-unit, 20-storey residential apartment building and a separate commercial building on waterfront lands.

The Town argued the proposal was out of scale, too dense, and incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts.

The Tribunal found the site was uniquely positioned for higher-density development, the design responded thoughtfully to its surroundings, and the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the York Region Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the Town's Official Plan, Comprehensive Zoning By-law, and a Site Specific Zoning By-law to facilitate an 88-unit townhouse condominium development.

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to consolidate the appeals and approve the planning instruments.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and allowed them in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water for post-construction foundation drainage at a proposed long-term care home on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to meet the stringent test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Director's decision was reasonable, based on a thorough technical review, and included conditions to prevent environmental harm.

The applicants' concerns were largely speculative, outside the scope of the permit, or related to broader opposition to the development rather than the water-taking itself.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its April 8, 2025 decision regarding a minor variance appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 73 of the original decision was replaced to clarify that issues regarding stormwater management, building codes, and property maintenance will be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage.