Andrea Skinner

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding an interim order that approved a zoning by-law amendment and site plan in principle, following a settlement.

The applicant sought to modify the development to increase density after the Town removed density limits in its Official Plan.

The Town argued this was a breach of contract.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to rule on jurisdiction, noting the applicant could pursue a minor variance.

The Tribunal also ruled that the interim order did not require the applicant to execute a site plan agreement before the final order was released, preferring the applicant's evidence on municipal practice.

The final order was issued.

The appellant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a commercial refuelling station for transport trucks.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

Based on uncontradicted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal optimized the use of existing land and infrastructure and was consistent with provincial and regional policies.

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

The appellant appealed the failure of the municipality and county to make decisions on a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision, as well as the passage of a comprehensive Zoning By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting a proposed residential development of 522-714 units.

The Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Whitby's Official Plan Amendment 130, which introduces policies for residential infill and intensification.

The parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested a second CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for June 18, 2024, and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order or settlement materials prior to that date.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding five Official Plan Amendment appeals in the Town of Oakville.

The Tribunal granted party status to Enirox Dundas 3015 Inc., which had acquired the rights of a previous party.

The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the five appeals, noting they involved the same appellants, related amendments, and the same approval authority.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to address procedural issues and the potential consolidation of related zoning by-law and draft plan of subdivision appeals.

In these cross-motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision, the Tribunal considered the interaction between the Indemnity Principle under the Expropriations Act and the efficiency objective reflected in Rule 49 settlement-offer consequences.

The Tribunal held that an owner recovering less than 85 per cent of the authority’s offer is not automatically disentitled to costs, but discretionary consequences may follow where the owner unreasonably rejects a proper offer and pursues the claim inefficiently.

The Tribunal found the June 15, 2018 offer was a proper plus-costs offer, that the claimant’s non-acceptance was unreasonable, and that the claimant’s stale and incomplete expert preparation, procedural inaction, and wasteful conduct justified reducing its scale of recovery after that date and awarding the authority partial indemnity costs throughout.

The claimant received reduced costs, and the authority also recovered partial indemnity costs.

The applicant appealed the Town of Whitby's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application.

Following a previous settlement in principle, the applicant sought to revise the site plan to increase density and reduce parking, relying on recent Town Official Plan revisions that were not yet approved by the Region.

The Town opposed issuing a final order on the revised site plan.

The Tribunal agreed with the Town, withheld its final order, and scheduled a two-day hearing to address the revised site plan issues.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The amendment sought to permit a commercial refueling station.

The Tribunal scheduled an 8-day video hearing to commence on March 25, 2024, and directed the appellant to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

Sifton Properties Limited appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential subdivision with neighbourhood commercial uses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the County Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Draft Plan of Subdivision and withholding the final order for the Zoning By-law Amendment pending the fulfillment of a condition related to an Official Plan designation change.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the respondent's passing of Zoning By-law Amendments.

The Tribunal scheduled a written motion to determine whether the respondent had jurisdiction to pass the by-law, and deferred requests for party status until after the motion is decided.

The appeals by one of the appellants were subsequently withdrawn.

The City of Vaughan and Promenade Limited Partnership brought motions for the approval of nine settlements regarding appeals of the City's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Transition By-law 039-2022.

The settlements proposed site-specific amendments to recognize previous zoning approvals and facilitate mixed-use, residential, and commercial developments.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments had regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the York Region Official Plan, and the Vaughan Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the proposed zoning by-law amendments.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a review decision of the Chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal, which had set aside a previous tribunal decision and ordered a rehearing regarding a zoning by-law amendment that restricted cannabis and hemp cultivation.

The moving party argued the Chair breached procedural fairness by failing to provide notice or an opportunity to respond, and by raising a new ground of review.

The Divisional Court found that the review decision was a final order, not interlocutory, but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The Court held that the Chair followed the established rules, the moving party had actual notice but chose not to respond, and the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to merit an appeal.

The Tribunal considered a motion to settle a site-specific appeal of a municipal-wide zoning by-law regulating cannabis production and processing facilities.

The Tribunal found that it could approve the site-specific settlement prior to hearing the remaining municipal-wide appeal because the settlement instrument could stand alone and would not pre-determine the outcome of the broader appeal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the site-specific amendment represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to applicable official plans by balancing agricultural promotion with the protection of sensitive land uses.

The settlement was approved and the remaining municipal-wide appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit a new two-storey replacement dwelling.

Following positive dialogue, the application was amended to reduce the number of variances from eight to five, repositioning the garage and driveway.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the amended variances for front yard setbacks, garage width, and sight triangle met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the amended variances were authorized subject to the condition that the dwelling be constructed substantially in accordance with the revised plans.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 367-unit residential apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments, finding they represent good planning and are in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 30-storey residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement, withholding its final order pending the finalization of site plan and zoning by-law details.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 30-storey residential building.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were working towards a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference, set a 14-day merits hearing, and approved the draft Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the procedural schedule and format for two upcoming motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation, rejected the claimant's request to bifurcate the hearing into separate entitlement and quantum phases, and directed that both motions be heard concurrently over a five-day period, with the claimant presenting its motion first.

Carmel Pharms brought a motion to separate its appeal of a zoning by-law amendment from a consolidated hearing with two other appellants, following a settlement with the Township of Oro-Medonte.

The Tribunal initially denied the motion due to concerns about fair adjudication for the remaining appellants.

After the parties collaborated to revise the draft order, the Tribunal rescinded its initial decision, granted the motion to separate the appeal, and approved the site-specific zoning by-law amendment for Carmel Pharms based on uncontested expert planning evidence.