Analee Baroudi

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1571145 Ontario Limited and Jim Graham against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The amendments would facilitate the development of two 5-storey apartment buildings.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals be heard together rather than consolidated, scheduled a five-day video hearing, and approved a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the parking and maintenance of two commercial motor vehicles on their residential property as a home occupation.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding area, which included a major arterial road with significant truck traffic.

The Tribunal accepted the applicants' planning evidence that the use maintained the residential character of the area and that any noise, odour, or safety impacts would be minimal and could be mitigated.

At a second Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a six-unit townhouse development, the Ontario Land Tribunal finalized the Issues List and scheduled a three-day hearing.

The parties were directed to submit a finalized Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the city's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate a 6-unit townhouse development.

A third party appealed the approval of a related consent application.

At the case management conference, the tribunal considered the impact of the newly enacted More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23).

The tribunal found that the third-party appellant did not meet the definition of a 'specified person' under the new legislation and the appeal was not scheduled prior to the transition date.

Consequently, the third-party consent appeal was dismissed.

The zoning by-law amendment appeal was adjourned to a second case management conference to allow the city council to reconsider the matter in light of Bill 23.

During an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment, the appellants brought a motion for discovery seeking extensive internal correspondence from the City, audio-visual recordings of public meetings, and raw data from a shadow study.

The Tribunal partially granted the motion, ordering the production of the public meeting recordings and the shadow study data, as these were relevant to the planning evidence.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the requests for internal emails and memoranda, finding them irrelevant to the planning merits and excessive under the principle of proportionality in discovery.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of their application to amend the Zoning By-law to allow for the storage of fireworks.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to 11 individuals without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 3-day merit hearing to commence on April 4, 2023, and directed the Town's counsel to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant and the City of London brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment without a hearing.

The self-represented appellant had filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to provide the mandatory reasons and explanations required by the Planning Act to demonstrate how the amendments were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or failed to conform with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the notice of appeal was deficient, raised no apparent land use planning grounds, and had no reasonable prospect of success, particularly given the uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the development.

The City of London and the applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a London Plan amendment without a hearing.

The appellant had previously withdrawn his appeals of the related 1989 Official Plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment, which permitted the proposed 15-storey residential development.

The Tribunal found that because the development could now proceed as of right subject only to site plan approval, the remaining appeal of the London Plan amendment was moot and frivolous.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant and the county brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a provisional consent to sever land for a townhouse development.

The appellant, a neighbouring resident, argued that the site included an improperly conveyed public road allowance and raised concerns about development in a floodplain.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that disputes over registered land ownership are outside its jurisdiction and must be resolved in the courts.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that floodplain and environmental issues, while legitimate planning concerns, are appropriately addressed through the related Zoning By-law Amendment process rather than the consent to sever, which deals only with land ownership and boundaries.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit a reduced lot size, reduced frontage, and reduced parking spaces for a proposed duplex on a retained lot following a severance.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, finding the proposal would co-exist harmoniously in the neighbourhood through creative infilling and intensification.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.

The Unity Project for Relief of Homelessness appealed the City of London's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a 24-storey mixed-use development.

The appellant argued that the density bonusing agreement, which provided 13 affordable housing units in exchange for increased height and density, was insufficient and did not meet Official Plan targets.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the development was compatible with the surrounding area, optimized existing infrastructure, and that the negotiated affordable housing contribution advanced the public interest and conformed to the applicable planning policies.

The appellants appealed the municipality's decision to amend a zoning by-law to permit a site-specific rezoning for a mixed-use building containing a dental clinic and five residential units.

The appellants raised concerns regarding the building's height, style, placement, parking, and potential impacts on the flood fringe zone.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants' design concerns could be addressed at the site plan control stage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Sifton Properties Ltd. against a zoning by-law amendment approved by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The parties indicated they were close to a settlement and requested a written hearing.

However, after the parties failed to respond to subsequent communications from the Tribunal regarding the status of the settlement, the Tribunal ordered the matter adjourned sine die.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a two-storey addition to an existing four-storey residential building.

The proposed development would add 40 units, increase the maximum height and density, and reduce the required parking and amenity space.

The Tribunal found that the proposed intensification was appropriate for the transit-oriented downtown location, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence supporting a reduced parking rate of 0.57 spaces per unit without requiring a holding provision for Transportation Demand Management measures.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Bradel Properties Ltd. against the City of London's refusal to extend a Temporary Use By-law for a surface parking lot.

The parties agreed on the need for a Traffic Study and proposed a four-day hearing in early 2023.

The Tribunal scheduled the video hearing for February 7, 2023, and approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 77-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence jointly presented by the parties, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal had regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association against the City of London's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, finalized the Issues List, and approved the Procedural Order.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on July 4, 2022, via video conferencing.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application under s. 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, seeking to enforce a municipal fence by-law against the respondents.

The application judge had declined to intervene, finding the Municipality had articulable reasons for not enforcing the by-law.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the application judge erred in requiring proof of municipal unreasonableness or bad faith for a taxpayer to succeed under s. 440.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a clear breach of the Fence By-law, particularly regarding how the by-law's definitions, which are tied to "street" applied to the respondents' property, which abuts private roads.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to declare a municipal election invalid.

They argued the removal of 1,131 names from the preliminary voters' list constituted an irregularity under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to adduce evidence that any voters were disenfranchised or that the presiding justice erred in concluding no irregularity occurred.

The new owner of a subject property brought a motion to be substituted as the appellant in appeals originally filed by a now-bankrupt developer regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The municipality and conservation authority brought a joint motion to dismiss the appeals due to delay.

The Tribunal found that the original appellant did not have a valid appeal of the new Official Plan because it failed to make the required statutory submissions.

The Tribunal denied the substitution motion, finding that allowing the new owner to carry on the delayed appeals under an outdated planning policy framework would cause prejudice to the parties and the public interest that could not be compensated by costs or an adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the joint motion to dismiss the appeals on the basis of delay.