Alice Michelle Mihailescu

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development of up to 290 townhouse units.

The parties reached a settlement that increased setbacks from Collins Creek and removed single-detached dwellings in favour of townhouses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an increased height and aggregate floor area for a new detached garage on a property zoned Environmental Protected.

The Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the structure was intended to house equipment for laneway maintenance and would not create negative impacts.

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

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by Loblaw Companies Limited against the City of Ottawa's adoption of the Orléans Corridor Secondary Plan.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the proposed settlement amendments, finding they have regard for provincial interests, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the City's Official Plan.

The amendments provide clearer, less prescriptive policy direction while maintaining the vision of the secondary plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings for an appeal of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48, which adopts the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence for the hearing scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025.

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

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they are exploring Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List if the matter is not settled.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and the failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 34-unit townhouse and semi-detached development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new single-detached dwelling with a front-facing attached garage, increased driveway width, and reduced landscape buffer.

The City did not participate in the hearing.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the Streetscape Character Analysis did not accurately reflect the existing neighbourhood character, which already featured numerous front-facing garages.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and being desirable and minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed high-rise development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of two towers (38 and 40 storeys) with a public park and privately-owned publicly accessible space.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy and the City's Official Plan, allowing the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the City of Ottawa on a zoning by-law amendment that required the waste storage area for a proposed residential addition to be located within the principal building.

The appellant argued for an external enclosed accessory building for waste storage.

The Tribunal found that the internal option would require an external lift, increase costs, reduce the size of barrier-free units, and result in a sub-optimal basement unit.

The Tribunal concluded that the external enclosed option represented better land use planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the condition was removed.

The applicant appealed a non-decision regarding a consent application for a lot enlargement, arguing that her property consisted of two separate existing lots of record that predated subdivision control.

In the alternative, she sought a consent to sever the property into two lots.

The Tribunal found that the property was a single lot for the purposes of the Planning Act, as an attempted severance in 1970 was abortive and failed to create legally conveyable lots.

The Tribunal also dismissed the alternative severance application, finding that the creation of a new residential lot in the Agricultural Resource Policy Area on a private road did not conform to the upper-tier municipality's Official Plan.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing under subsection 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The amendment permitted the development of a 10-unit transitional housing apartment building and regularized an existing group home.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's concerns regarding public consultation, servicing adequacy, traffic safety, and zoning compliance were unsubstantiated apprehensions and did not constitute genuine land use planning grounds.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of a permit for demolition and new construction under the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Plan.

The applicants proposed to replace five existing dwellings with two low-rise apartment buildings.

The City and a residents' association opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the heritage character of the area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, with minor alterations to scale, articulation, and landscaping, was suitable and compatible with the cultural heritage landscape.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and directed the City to issue the permits subject to finalization of plans regarding stepbacks, facade variations, and greenspace enhancements.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a three-tower development.

The City indicated its intent to bring a motion arguing that its new Official Plan ousts the Clergy Principle, which would require the applications to be evaluated under the new plan rather than the former one.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to organize the motion and directed the City to request consolidation of similar appeals for the purpose of the motion.

A Procedural Order was also issued, subject to the outcome of the motion.

The appellant mother wrongfully removed the parties' three children from their habitual residence in Nigeria to Ontario.

The trial judge declined jurisdiction under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act and ordered the children returned to Nigeria under s. 40, finding no serious harm would result.

On appeal, the mother argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the serious harm test, Nigerian law, and the requirements of s. 40.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors and correctly applied the law regarding jurisdiction and return orders.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Florida resident, in a personal injury action arising from a trip and fall at the CN Tower.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity.

The court found the plaintiff failed to meet the rigorous standard of financial disclosure required to prove impecuniosity, noting her unencumbered condominium and lack of medical evidence regarding her inability to work.

Applying a holistic approach, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $17,000 in security for costs up to and including discoveries.