Allison A. Thornton

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal approved a partial settlement between the City and the Guelph & District Home Builders’ Association, finding it represented good land use planning and was consistent with provincial policies.

The Tribunal also established a Procedural Order and scheduled a three-week merits hearing for the remaining appeals.

The appellant developer appealed the City's calculation of development charges for a new residential building, seeking a refund of $153,932.

The appellant argued that a prepayment agreement had been formed through email correspondence with City staff, locking in lower rates from a previous by-law for 270 units.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that no legally binding prepayment agreement existed because the Development Charges By-law requires express Council approval for such agreements, which was never obtained.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the original building permit and associated development charges applied only to the first two buildings, and had no connection to the third building in question.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal received status updates indicating that several site-specific appeals had been resolved, while constructive discussions continued on the remaining city-wide and site-specific appeals.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second multi-day Case Management Conference for March 2026 to further organize the proceedings and establish a Procedural Order for any unresolved issues.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 14-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner, consolidated the appeals, and scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Guelph's Development Charges By-law.

The appellant sought an exemption for a proposed student residence.

The Tribunal determined that a two-day merit hearing with viva voce evidence was appropriate and scheduled the hearing for January 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 106 (OPA 106), which revised permitted building heights in the Downtown Secondary Plan area.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties jointly requested an order scoping the appeal to a specific item as it relates to the appellant's lands and holding the appeal in abeyance pending a decision on site-specific development applications.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the scoping order represented good planning and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Tribunal granted the requested relief, confirming that the unappealed portions of OPA 106 came into effect by operation of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to convert a detached garage into an additional dwelling unit.

The application sought to reduce the interior side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 0.61 metres.

The Tribunal found that while the application maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and was desirable, it failed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law and was not minor in nature due to concerns about the maintenance of the structure along the lot line.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the non-decision (indefinite deferral) of the City of Guelph's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to reduce permanent and temporary parking requirements for a residential development.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the indefinite deferral was tantamount to a refusal.

On the merits, the Tribunal authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the reduced parking rates were justified by site-specific studies, supported transit use, and avoided an oversupply of parking.

The variances were approved subject to conditions, including the provision of additional temporary spaces and transit passes.

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 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 applicant appealed the City of Guelph's zoning by-law amendment regarding a proposed multi-storey student housing development.

The parties reached a settlement that modified the by-law to address site-specific issues including density, parking, and building setbacks.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised by-law amendment was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. against the City of Guelph's decision to dismiss a complaint about development charges for a building.

The parties agreed that settlement was unlikely and submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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

The appellant appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks regarding a property in Guelph.

At the third Case Management Conference, the Ministry advised that the Order had been fulfilled.

The appellant requested additional time to review newly disclosed documents and determine how to proceed with the appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the request and ordered the matter held in abeyance until the appellant requests a subsequent conference or until April 22, 2025.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding a property in Guelph.

At the second Case Management Conference, the appellant requested an adjournment to review a recently received technical report review from the Ministry.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and ordered a further exchange of relevant documents.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a 10-storey mixed-use building.

The order establishes the issues list, procedural dates, and schedules a 10-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicant concerning a heritage designation by-law and the refusal of a demolition permit for properties located at 2187 Gordon Street in the City of Guelph.

The hearing is scheduled for seven days commencing September 10, 2024.

The appellants appealed the Director's decision to issue a Certificate of Property Use (CPU) for a former industrial property in Guelph, arguing that the CPU failed to adequately address the risk of contaminated groundwater migrating offsite to their adjacent properties.

The Tribunal found that while there was a risk of contaminant migration to one of the adjacent properties (10 Kingsmill), there was no risk of migration to the other (490 York).

The Tribunal held that the CPU's groundwater monitoring program and contingency requirements provided sufficient safeguards to address the potential for adverse effects, and that implementing physical barriers would be premature and potentially harmful given the complex fractured bedrock environment.

The Tribunal ordered minor amendments to the CPU to reclassify two monitoring wells as downgradient and to require the City to provide advance notice of groundwater sampling to the adjacent property owners, but otherwise confirmed the CPU.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing concerning three appeals against the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The appellants reached settlements with the City to establish site-specific zoning provisions for their respective properties, including permissions for office and medical clinic uses, and a mixed-use development.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to give effect to the settlements.

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 24-unit stacked townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised amendments to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed infill development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the amendments to the 1995 Zoning By-law but noted it lacked jurisdiction to approve anticipated amendments to the City's new 2023 Zoning By-law, which was not before it.

The appellants appealed the City of Guelph's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential development consisting of cluster townhouses and an apartment building.

The City subsequently withdrew its objections after being satisfied with the stormwater management strategy.

An adjacent landowner argued the development would landlock its property and requested a Holding symbol to force coordinated development.

The Tribunal found that the lack of access was a pre-existing condition and that the proposed development represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved.