Other Tribunals

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a four-storey mixed-use building on a consolidated parcel following a land swap.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Regional and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part to implement the settlement and dismissed the subdivision appeal on consent.

The RECE participated in a Discipline Resolution Process and admitted to professional misconduct after serving a 16-month-old child a hot cup of milk without checking the temperature, resulting in second-degree burns.

The RECE also failed to administer proper first aid immediately.

The Discipline Committee adopted the Proposed Resolution, finding the RECE guilty of professional misconduct for failing to supervise adequately and breaching standards of practice.

The Committee ordered a reprimand, an 8-month suspension, and terms including mentorship.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference concerning appeals by the applicant against the Township's failure to make decisions on a Zoning By-law Amendment and three Consent applications.

The Tribunal consolidated the four appeals.

The parties advised they had reached a settlement in principle based on revised Consent applications.

The Tribunal determined the revisions were minor and required no further notice under s. 53(35.1) of the Planning Act, and scheduled a written hearing to consider the settlement.

The applicant mother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, specifically regarding the apprehension and adoption of her child.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the issues had already been decided by a court.

The Board found that the child was made a Crown ward in 2017 and the applicant's review application was dismissed in 2019.

Concluding that the application was an attempt to relitigate issues decided by the court almost a decade ago, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant, the Ottawa Catholic School Board, applied for a minor variance to permit a reduced front yard setback of 4.75 metres for a proposed secondary school, whereas the Zoning By-law requires 7.5 metres.

The Committee of Adjustment applied the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Finding that the variance would not create unacceptable adverse impacts, fits well in the area, and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, the Committee granted the application.

The applicants sought minor variances to convert their duplex into a low-rise apartment building by adding two dwelling units.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, interior side yard setbacks, and front façade window percentage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting no objections from the City or neighbours.

The application was granted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by CF/OT Buttonville Properties Inc. against the City of Markham's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to 60 Renfrew and participant status to Phil Stewart on consent.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled for June 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 31-storey purpose-built rental building.

The Tribunal granted party status to four associations and individuals, and participant status to ten individuals, on consent or without objection.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance for a reduced parking requirement to facilitate a six-unit townhouse development with secondary dwelling units.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the proposal.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances, including the parking reduction, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The Lake Associations brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by Our Muskoka, Miller Paving, and Elizabeth Lippa against the District's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the plan was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or failed to conform with the District Official Plan, as required by s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion, dismissing Our Muskoka's appeal entirely for lacking the mandatory explanations and land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Miller Paving and Lippa appeals in part, scoping them to remove broad claims of non-conformity that lacked specific policy references.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a 48-storey mixed-use development.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued an amended Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to a 9-day video hearing commencing on June 16, 2026.

The appellant appealed the Minister of Transportation's decision to extend his ignition interlock condition by six months.

The Minister brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the extension was not a decision under s. 32(5)(b)(i) or s. 47 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Tribunal found the Minister failed to provide sufficient submissions explaining why the extension did not constitute a decision under s. 32(5)(b)(i).

As the hearing on the merits was imminent, the Tribunal adjourned the motion to be decided by the adjudicator assigned to the main hearing.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, which occurred after her daughter drove the vehicle with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment caused exceptional hardship.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant, a single mother of four living in a rural area without public transit, had no reasonable alternative to the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded that the loss of the vehicle caused immediate, significant, and lasting financial, employment, and educational losses.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by verbally asking the driver if he had a valid licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps, such as requesting to see the physical licence or conducting an online check, which he regularly did for other employees.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for violent offences, underwent an annual review of his Conditional Discharge by the Ontario Review Board.

The hospital, the Attorney General, and the accused jointly recommended continuing the Conditional Discharge, with the Attorney General requesting the removal of an address notification condition that conflicted with a residency requirement.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation, finding that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety but that the threat can be managed in the community with the modified Conditional Discharge.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing to review the conditional discharge of an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and a mild intellectual disability, sought an absolute discharge.

The Hospital and the Attorney General recommended continuing the conditional discharge.

Applying the Winko framework, the Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's limited insight, residual psychosis, and need for 24-hour support meant he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge as the least onerous and least restrictive disposition.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia and substance use disorder, continued to experience grandiose and persecutory delusions, lacked insight into his illness, and engaged in rule-breaking behaviour.

The Board found that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his detention order, adding a condition that he reside in supervised accommodation when living in the community.

The Registrant brought a motion requesting that his upcoming discipline hearing be held in-person rather than by videoconference.

The College did not oppose the motion on the basis of efficiency, given the lengthy procedural history and the fact that the main witness would require an interpreter for extensive testimony.

The Discipline Committee found that while the Registrant did not meet the threshold of significant prejudice required to prohibit an electronic hearing, fairness and efficiency considerations warranted exercising its discretion to order an in-person hearing.

The applicant sought consent to sever their property into two parcels to create a new lot for future residential development, along with a minor variance for reduced lot width.

The City had no concerns, though the applicant contested two conditions proposed by the City's Building Code Services regarding independent services and limited distance separation.

The Committee found these conditions were not reasonable or necessary and declined to impose them.

The Committee granted the consent and authorized the minor variance, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The applicants applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever a portion of their property for a lot line adjustment, transferring vacant land to an adjacent property owner.

The application was unopposed and supported by city planning staff.

The Committee found the application consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions, including the registration of a noise warning agreement due to an adjacent active pit operation and the consolidation of the severed lands with the abutting property.