Austin Ray

St. Rita at Marylake Long Term Care Home brought a motion for costs against Save The Oak Ridges Moraine and Kingscross Ratepayers Association following the dismissal of their application for leave to appeal a Permit to Take Water.

St. Rita argued the application was frivolous, vexatious, and brought solely to delay the development of a long-term care facility.

The Tribunal found that while the leave application was unsuccessful and partly raised issues outside its jurisdiction, the appellants' conduct did not meet the threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motion for costs was denied.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 1912900 Ontario Inc. against the Town of Milton's passing of By-law 107-2025, a housekeeping amendment that altered the definition of a lot.

The parties advised that they were in settlement discussions and requested that the matter not be scheduled for a hearing.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter pending the outcome of negotiations and directed the parties to provide a written status update.

The Ontario Land Tribunal convened a fourth Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment introducing interim policies for Major Transit Station Areas, and the new City Official Plan.

The City provided a status update on ongoing settlement negotiations and proposed future motions.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of consolidating the appeals and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 8, 2026.

The parties to an expropriation compensation claim submitted a draft procedural order to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued the procedural order, setting the schedule for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, exchange of expert reports, and scheduling an 8-day video hearing to commence on September 14, 2026.

The Vice-Chair remained seized for ongoing case management.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the Phase 2 hearing on the merits regarding appeals by Lambs Road School Property Ltd. concerning a proposed residential redevelopment and the demolition of a heritage building in the Municipality of Clarington.

The Phase 2 hearing was scheduled for five days commencing June 22, 2026, and the procedural order set out the key dates for the exchange of witness statements, expert meetings, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a corrective order under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend a previous Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The correction fixed a typographical error in the spelling of counsel's name for Home Depot of Canada Inc. from Noah Jorden to Noah Gordon.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for Major Transit Station Areas and the new City Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to 201 County Court Brampton Holdings Inc. on consent.

The parties reported progress in mediation and proposed a written settlement motion once a draft order is finalized.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2026 to address outstanding matters and potential consolidation of the appeals.

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 10-storey commercial building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal also scheduled a seven-day merit hearing for February 2026 and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicants sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue a Permit to Take Water for post-construction foundation drainage at a proposed long-term care home on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to meet the stringent test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Director's decision was reasonable, based on a thorough technical review, and included conditions to prevent environmental harm.

The applicants' concerns were largely speculative, outside the scope of the permit, or related to broader opposition to the development rather than the water-taking itself.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning a proposed residential redevelopment and the demolition of a heritage building in the Municipality of Clarington.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order and scheduled a two-phase merit hearing to commence in June and December 2025.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-028.

The parties reached partial settlements, scoping the appeals to specific lands and two policies.

The Tribunal used its powers under s. 34(23.1) of the Planning Act to approve the non-appealed portions of the by-law, bringing them into full force and effect.

The remaining appeals were deferred pending the outcome of a related review application, and a fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled.

A Case Management Conference was held following a settlement of appeals regarding a proposed subdivision.

The parties disputed whether shared or individual driveway culverts should be used, leading the City to refuse to clear draft plan conditions.

The Tribunal tentatively scheduled a written motion to resolve the issue and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order.

When the parties failed to confirm their intention to proceed by the deadline, citing ongoing settlement discussions, the Tribunal released the reserved motion date.

The appellants appealed the Region's failure to make a decision on their complaint regarding an additional development charge.

The Region had initially assessed and collected a development charge at a discounted industrial rate, certified the payment, and issued a building permit.

Months later, the Region issued a notice of reassessment for an additional $13.7 million, claiming the discounted rate was applied in error because the building would be used as an Amazon fulfillment centre.

The Tribunal held that under the Development Charges Act and the Region's DC By-law, the Region is barred from imposing an additional development charge or correcting an alleged error after the charge has been assessed, collected, certified, and the building permit issued.

The appeal was allowed.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by four landowners against the Township of King's new comprehensive Zoning By-Law 24-028.

The parties agreed to categorize the grounds of appeal into three main groups, with some issues to be deferred pending the outcome of a related jurisdictional review in another proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to allow the parties further time to scope the issues, potentially resolve minor site-specific corrections, and address pending party status requests from two citizens' groups.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct typographical errors in a decision issued on October 16, 2024.

The amendments included replacing an attachment, correcting the spelling of 'Brampton', and correcting the word 'sized' to 'seized'.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 16 appeals against the newly adopted 2023 City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to five requesting entities, including conservation authorities and railway companies, finding they had a direct interest.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals with a related Major Transit Station Area case to a subsequent joint CMC, and established a schedule for the appellants to provide modification letters to the City.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by Lambs Road School Property Ltd. concerning the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision, as well as an appeal regarding the demolition of a heritage building.

The order sets out the schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the 15-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 17, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a transit-oriented development at 88 Steeles Avenue West.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, which permits two high-rise residential towers, represents good planning and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of specified conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seniors' campus and townhouse units.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to organize the hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three minor variances required to construct a new two-storey dwelling.

The variances sought relief for increased building height, reduced rear yard setback, and increased lot coverage.

The parties reached a settlement and relied on a municipal planning report supporting the application.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.