Alex Ciccone

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted requests from several parties to withdraw their appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a request by Losani Homes to consolidate its site-specific appeals of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law with its appeals of privately-initiated applications for the same properties, finding it would be an effective and efficient use of resources.

Further Case Management Conference dates were scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan to permit a 40-storey apartment building.

The City argued the building should be limited to 32 storeys and raised concerns about the floorplate size and amenity space.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the 40-storey height and 850 square metre floorplate, finding them compatible with the surrounding context.

However, the Tribunal required the amenity space to be increased to the standard 5.6 square metres per unit and excluded a narrow balcony from the amenity space calculation.

The appellant appealed the City of London's passing of Heritage Designation By-laws for two properties subject to an approved comprehensive redevelopment application.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the appellant had filed heritage alteration permits which were approved by City Council, and that demolition clearances were anticipated.

The appellant requested an adjournment to allow for the issuance of the clearances, after which the appeals would likely be withdrawn.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals adjourned sine die.

The applicants, Paul and Roberta Bennett, sought a declaration of a right-of-way over property owned by the respondents, Kimberly Chadwick and Cressview Lakes Corporation, and an order requiring removal of a fence allegedly impeding their access.

The dispute centered on the location of the right-of-way and whether the applicants’ access was impeded.

The court found that the original right-of-way was over Lot 45 (not Lot 46), as established by a 1961 resolution and a 1974 agreement, and that the fence did not impede access.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a drive-thru restaurant.

At the settlement hearing, a participant requested an adjournment to seek party status, which the Tribunal denied because the participant had not made prior submissions to Council as required by the Planning Act.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence and a settlement reached between the parties, the Tribunal found the revised proposal addressed traffic and compatibility concerns and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the revised zoning by-law.

The County of Middlesex appealed the approval of a consent to sever application by the Committee of Adjustment for the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc.

The application sought to sever approximately one acre of farmland from a 49-acre parcel.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference, confirmed the parties' awareness of mediation, and scheduled a hearing for October 1, 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's dismissal of a complaint regarding the calculation of development charges for a proposed three-building development.

The appellant argued that an overpayment from revised plans for the first two buildings should be applied to the third building based on an alleged pre-payment agreement and equitable principles, including interest.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a pre-payment agreement and holding that it lacked jurisdiction to apply equitable remedies to site-specific development charge determinations under the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal also agreed with the City that no interest was owed for the period when the appellant voluntarily revised its plans.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The parties reached a partial settlement regarding site-specific modifications for a proposed parking structure at 201 Elmira Road South, specifically reducing the minimum parking stall dimensions while applying the 1995 Zoning By-law regulations to the rest of the structure.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site-specific modifications.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Cambridge Aggregates Inc. against the Township of North Dumfries for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a new aggregate pit.

The Tribunal granted party status to the North Dumfries Conservation Alliance and participant status to a local resident.

A Procedural Order was approved, and an eight-day merit hearing was scheduled for October 2025.

The District Municipality of Muskoka brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by the appellant regarding the lapsing of a draft plan of subdivision.

The appellant had requested an extension of the lapsing date, which the District did not grant, leading the appellant to appeal under section 51(48) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that subsection 51(33) enables but does not oblige an approval authority to extend a lapsing date, and there is no statutory right of appeal from a decision not to extend.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Development Charges By-laws by the Township of Georgian Bay and the District of Muskoka, the parties requested a phased hearing approach to address common issues.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent, vacated the previously scheduled merit hearing, and directed the parties to provide dates for a coordinated first phase hearing.

The appellant requested a hearing date for its appeal of the City of Guelph's Comprehensive Zoning By-law regarding parking requirements.

The City opposed, arguing that one of the issues was already litigated in a recent minor variance appeal and scheduling it would constitute issue estoppel.

The Tribunal directed that the overlapping issue be held in abeyance pending the minor variance decision, and scheduled a written settlement hearing for the remaining agreed-upon issues.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion on consent for an order under s. 34(31) of the Planning Act to bring into force the un-appealed portions of its Protected Major Transit Station Areas By-law.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that partial approval would streamline development and provide housing more quickly.

The motion was granted, and the by-law was deemed in force as of its passing date, save for the specific properties subject to the appeals.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application intended to facilitate residential development by redefining wetland and hazard zones.

The parties reached a settlement proposal that significantly reduced the development footprint and provided appropriate setbacks to natural heritage features.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, County of Grey Official Plan, and the Town's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended Zoning By-law.

The City of Brantford brought a motion to scope appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL) and to bring the unappealed portions of the CZBL into full force and effect on a city-wide basis.

The appellant parties consented to scoping their appeals to their specific sites or areas.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found that granting the motion represented good planning as it would streamline the development process.

The Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, bringing the CZBL into force save and except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 4, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to correct the spelling of counsel Diana Doracin's name in the appearances list.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Southside Construction Management Ltd. against the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc's refusal to amend its Zoning By-law to permit a drive-thru restaurant.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighboring resident.

The parties agreed on procedural matters and the Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing for June 2025, ordering the parties to deliver a finalized Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to redefine wetland and hazard zones and establish development envelopes.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Telephone City Aggregates Inc. concerning the failure of the County of Brant to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applications propose a 390-unit residential development.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on August 18, 2025, for five days.