Alstair Huw Alstyne Burton

The appellant appealed the Township Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit reduced shoreline and slope setbacks for a newly constructed deck on a waterfront property.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal authorized the slope setback variance, finding it met the four tests under the Planning Act as the redesigned deck would be located outside the erosion hazard area.

However, the Tribunal refused the shoreline setback variance, concluding it failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Township's Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was an inappropriate use of the lands, and was not minor in nature due to unacceptable adverse impacts on the waterbody and natural features.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the new Official Plan for the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address procedural matters and a motion by the Town to bring unappealed portions of the Official Plan into force.

The applicant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and a proposed Plan of Subdivision to permit townhouse and single-detached dwellings.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted the parties had engaged in mediation and scheduled a 13-day hearing to commence on October 20, 2026.

The Tribunal also ordered the submission of an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to the school boards and conservation authority.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue discussions and finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming 15-day hearing regarding appeals by Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. against the Town of Halton Hills.

The appeals relate to the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a mixed-use development with 1,481 residential units.

The order establishes the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the hearing scheduled to commence on November 23, 2026.

The applicant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit townhouse dwellings and a single-detached dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Glen Williams Community Association and participant status to an individual on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for March 2026 and a 15-day merit hearing for May and June 2026.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order for appeals against the County of Simcoe's approval of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

Lorablue Developments Inc. requested an adjournment of its appeal, arguing it was site-specific and required ecological studies.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the appeal included broad policy issues that should be addressed at the scheduled hearing, though the parties could later agree to defer the issues if narrowed.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on applications for a mixed-use redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident without objection.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled, and the parties were directed to finalize and file a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of Caledon to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, and the refusal by the Niagara Escarpment Commission of development permits, to allow a new aggregate extraction operation (gravel pit).

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with the Town, the Commission, and a neighbouring property owner, resulting in revised site plans and conditions that addressed concerns regarding water, natural heritage, noise, and air quality.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning and meets all legislative tests.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, contingent upon the Crown advising that adequate Indigenous consultation has occurred.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of development permits to allow a new gravel pit operation.

The applicant also sought a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with the Town, the Commission, and a neighbouring property owner, resulting in revised site plans and conditions that addressed concerns regarding traffic, water quality, natural heritage, noise, and air quality.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and adequately mitigates potential adverse impacts.

The Tribunal approved the Official Plan Amendment and recommended approval of the development permits and Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment, issuing an interim order contingent upon confirmation of adequate Indigenous consultation.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of development permits to allow a new gravel pit operation.

The Ministry of Natural Resources also referred the applicant's Aggregate Resources Act licence application to the Tribunal.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with the Town, the Commission, and a neighbouring landowner, resulting in revised site plans and conditions that addressed concerns regarding water, natural heritage, noise, and air quality.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning, meets all legislative tests, and adequately mitigates potential impacts.

The Tribunal approved the Official Plan Amendment, directed the issuance of the aggregate licence, and recommended approval of the Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment and development permits, subject to an interim order pending confirmation of adequate Indigenous consultation.

The matter involves a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from Metrolinx's expropriation of a property in Toronto.

During status teleconferences, it was noted that the Claimant failed to deliver witness statements in accordance with a prior Procedural Order.

Metrolinx requested $2,500 in costs due to this non-compliance.

The Tribunal deferred the costs request to be considered after the hearing or upon settlement, and issued a revised Procedural Order setting new hearing dates for April 2026.

Following a settlement agreement for the expropriation of the claimant's property, the claimant brought an application for costs under section 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The City of Toronto challenged the number of hours and the hourly rate billed by the claimant's counsel, and sought its own costs for the assessment.

The Tribunal found the claimant's counsel's hours and $700 hourly rate to be reasonable, rejecting the City's arguments and criticizing the City's counsel for inappropriate personal attacks.

The Tribunal deducted $5,667 for costs related to acquiring a replacement property but otherwise awarded the claimant $193,004 for the expropriation costs and an additional $20,250 for the costs of the application.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Town proposed a revised hearing plan extending into 2027, which the Tribunal rejected due to its mandate for timely proceedings.

Instead, the Tribunal added ten hearing days in May 2026 and directed parties to advise if more time is needed for site-specific appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an unopposed request by one appellant to adjourn its appeals sine die to allow for seasonal fieldwork and testing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in the amount of $5,000, with entitlement to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for a determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on January 26, 2026, for a period of eight days.

The order sets out the schedule for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, expert meetings, and the exchange of witness statements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a written settlement hearing and a telephone conference call to address a revised phased hearing plan and proposed settlements.

Metrolinx brought a motion to have three separate expropriation compensation claims heard together or consecutively at the same hearing event.

The claims related to properties expropriated for the Ontario Line transit project.

The claimants opposed the motion, arguing that their claims involved different approaches to highest and best use, different experts, and were at different stages of procedural readiness.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while there were some common facts, the differences in the claims, the risk of prejudice from delaying the most advanced proceeding, and the lack of readiness of the other files outweighed the efficiency benefits sought by Metrolinx.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 23, 2025.

The amendment revised paragraph 6 to update the deadlines for certain appellants to submit revisions to their issues lists on consent.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant Party Status to three entities on consent, noting they must shelter under the appellants' issues.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 25-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to continue scoping issues and exploring settlement.