Aynsley Anderson

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals against the City of London's Official Plan (The London Plan).

The appeals concern the proposed non-agricultural and natural heritage designations applied to the appellants' lands.

The order sets out the hearing dates, procedural requirements, list of parties, and the issues list to be determined at the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of London's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a 17-storey residential development.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several individuals and organizations.

A Procedural Order was issued to govern the upcoming eight-day hearing, with directions for the parties to resolve the final order of evidence.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding various remaining site-specific appeals to the City of London's new Official Plan, the 'London Plan'.

The City brought a motion, on consent of the appellants, to approve modifications to Maps 1 and 5 to resolve several site-specific appeals.

Based on the uncontested affidavit evidence of a senior planner, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the London Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal approved the modifications, noted the withdrawal of several appeals, and scheduled future hearings and case management conferences for the remaining appeals.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by Cadillac Fairview Corporation, CP REIT Ontario Properties, and BMO Assurance Company against the City of London's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 745 (Masonville Secondary Plan Area).

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of London's new secondary plan for the Masonville Area.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the City's motion for an order under s. 17(27) of the Planning Act confirming that the unappealed portions of the secondary plan came into effect on November 26, 2021.

The Tribunal also scheduled a seven-day video hearing for the appeals to commence in June 2023.

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 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 appellant appealed the City of London's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments that would permit a 42-unit affordable housing development.

The appellant argued that the neighbourhood was deficient in parkland and that the development should include on-site park dedication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the development is an appropriate form of intensification, conforms to the Official Plan, and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found that the City's decision to take cash-in-lieu of parkland was appropriate given the small size of the site.

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.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Unity Project for Relief of Homelessness against a zoning by-law amendment granted by the City of London for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to four entities on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 9-day hearing to commence on March 1, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the City's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments created a new boundary for an Environmentally Significant Area, allegedly precluding development of the appellant's lands.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals and issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties, scheduling a 7-day video hearing for April 2022.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that upheld a zoning by-law amendment permitting a Supervised Consumption Facility.

The applicants argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the amendment conformed to the 1989 Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding the proposed appeal raised a question of mixed fact and law, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, and the issue was not of sufficient general or public importance.

Following successful appeals that revoked a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the applicants sought costs against the Approval Holder and the Director of the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.

The applicants alleged unreasonable and bad faith conduct prior to and during the hearing, including late filing of evidence and changing positions mid-hearing.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the costs applications, finding that conduct prior to the proceeding is not eligible for costs, and that the conduct during the hearing was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The appellants appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility.

The Tribunal previously found the appellants satisfied the Health Test and Environment Test.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions on the appropriate remedy regarding the Environment Test.

The appellants opposed, arguing the approval should be revoked immediately based on the Health Test finding.

The Tribunal granted the request for a remedy hearing, finding it necessary to ensure a just determination of all issues and to fully exercise its jurisdiction before making a final disposition.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a telephone conference call to determine procedural issues regarding the form and scheduling of the remedy phase of the hearing for the Fairview Wind Project.

The Tribunal ordered that the remedy phase be conducted in-person in Collingwood, Ontario, and set a schedule for the filing of witness statements and supporting documents.

The Tribunal previously found that a renewable energy approval for a wind project would cause serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The approval holder requested an opportunity to submit evidence and make submissions on appropriate remedies under s. 145.2.1(4) of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a telephone conference call to determine the form, scope, and scheduling of the remedy hearing.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the appeal hearing to allow for a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment application to be processed.

All parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Panel granted the adjournment, finding it reasonable as the amendment application was closely related to the current appeal, and vacated the previously scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant sought a determination from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that a municipal site alteration by-law restricted his proposed normal farm practice.

The applicant planned to import approximately 87,000 cubic metres of fill to improve the topography of his land for an apple orchard, addressing water and air drainage issues.

The Board found that the applicant had standing and demonstrable plans, and that the importation of fill for land improvement constituted a normal farm practice using innovative technology.

The Board ruled that the municipal by-law restricted this practice and ordered that the practice be permitted subject to strict compliance with a Fill Management Plan and provincial best management practices.