Andrew Biggart

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a two-storey place of worship.

Following a productive Tribunal-led mediation, the parties requested additional hearing dates to allow for continued mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day hearing, which may be converted to a settlement hearing if a resolution is reached, and directed the filing of a revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Ledim Developments Ltd. against the Town of Ajax's Development Charges By-law No. 13-2025.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and scoped Issues List by August 25, 2025, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 1, 2025, to set dates for a merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Georgina's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 380-unit, 20-storey residential apartment building and a separate commercial building on waterfront lands.

The Town argued the proposal was out of scale, too dense, and incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts.

The Tribunal found the site was uniquely positioned for higher-density development, the design responded thoughtfully to its surroundings, and the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the York Region Official Plan.

This was a status hearing regarding multiple appeals against the Region of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 119 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal deferred a party status request from Canadian National Railway Company to the next Case Management Conference to allow parties time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 16, 2025.

The Applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a two-storey place of worship.

During the hearing, the Applicant sought to cross-examine a Town witness on a newly revised draft zoning by-law and introduce it as reply evidence.

The Tribunal denied these requests, finding they would cause procedural unfairness and prejudice to the Town, as the original draft had already been supported by the Applicant's experts in their case-in-chief.

Subsequently, the parties jointly requested an adjournment to pursue Tribunal-led mediation, which the Tribunal granted, scheduling a future Case Management Conference.

During a hearing on the merits of an appeal concerning a proposed redevelopment, the moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that two expert witnesses retained by the respondents committed perjury and colluded via email.

The moving party argued the experts' evidence was tainted and should be excluded.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to make criminal findings of perjury, but had authority to address improper conduct.

The Tribunal concluded that the email exchange did not breach Rule 7.5 of the Tribunal Rules, did not impair the experts' independence or impartiality, and did not prejudice the moving party.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the experts' evidence remained on the record.

The applicants appealed the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make a decision regarding official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision applications for a proposed high-rise development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham on consent.

The Tribunal denied a party status request from a neighboring developer, granting participant status instead, as the primary concern regarding building height would be adequately addressed by the municipalities.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-week merit hearing.

A case management conference was held regarding multiple appeals concerning the North Oakville West Secondary Plan.

The appellants and the Town of Oakville have been engaged in settlement discussions and have reached an agreement in principle on a development concept for the Palermo Village Growth Area.

The parties requested that the finalization of the draft Procedural Order and Issues List be put on hold to allow settlement discussions to advance.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the parties to provide status updates on their respective appeals.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for a mixed-use residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List by May 8, 2025.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in September 2025.

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $10,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The appellant appealed the Town of Georgina's comprehensive zoning by-law update, which rezoned their vacant property to Environmental Protection (EP) and Agricultural Protection (AP).

At the hearing, the unrepresented appellant expressed concerns that the zoning would prevent future development.

After the Town's planner explained that the zoning merely reflected the Official Plan and that any future development would require a rezoning application and an Environmental Impact Study, the appellant took no position and led no evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the Town's uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the by-law conforms to the Official Plan and provincial policies, and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the Town of Georgina's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The proposed development consists of a 20-storey apartment building and a commercial building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals and scheduled a multi-day hearing for March 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its January 31, 2025 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the decision to insert Schedules 1 through 6 into Attachment 1.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The appellants appealed the failure of the Region of York to make a decision regarding the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's Official Plan Amendment No. 136.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the OPA, which address growth management and water/wastewater servicing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part and the OPA was approved as modified.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town of Georgina's refusal to adopt a requested zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment would permit the conversion of a single detached dwelling into an accessory structure.

The Tribunal granted party status to one individual and participant status to several others on consent.

A three-day hearing on the merits was scheduled, and a procedural order was approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision dated January 15, 2025.

The amendment replaced Paragraph 66 to accurately reflect the evidence of a witness regarding the provision of affordable housing and the absence of a policy mandating it on a site-specific basis.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-density residential development.

The City opposed the development, raising concerns about shadow impacts on adjacent parklands, park grading, the lack of affordable housing, and the adequacy of the unit mix.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the shadow impacts were minimal, the park grading was acceptable, and there was no statutory or policy requirement to mandate affordable housing on a site-specific basis.

The Tribunal also found the proposed unit mix to be adequate and transit-supportive.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Following a settlement between one appellant and the Town, the parties sought approval of minor amendments to clarify the by-law's language regarding the timing of land value assessments and the definition of development, aligning it with sections 41 and 42(6.4) of the Act.

The Tribunal approved the amendments on consent, resolving that appellant's appeal, while the appeals of the other parties remain ongoing.

The applicants appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit a 141-unit residential subdivision.

At a status hearing, the parties advised they were continuing settlement discussions and requested an adjournment sine die.

To ensure proper docket management, the Tribunal instead scheduled a further status hearing by telephone conference call for March 2025.

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to facilitate the development of 37 estate homes.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was informed that the parties are engaged in mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing commencing June 2, 2025, and ordered the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order by December 31, 2024.