Brian Duxbury

At a case management conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to decide on an Official Plan Amendment for a settlement area boundary expansion, a party brought a motion raising constitutional issues regarding the duty to consult under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the party, not being an Indigenous community or authorized representative, lacked standing to assert a breach of the duty to consult.

The Tribunal also declined to order independent technical studies or adjourn the proceeding.

The Tribunal finalized the issues list, allowing an issue regarding consistency with PPS policy 6.1.2 but striking an issue regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application and the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for wetland relocation.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a revised draft plan for an industrial business park that protects and enhances natural heritage features, including expanding and partially relocating an existing wetland.

Based on uncontested expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies, addressed participant concerns, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to expand the settlement area boundary.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner who raised concerns about density and environmental impacts.

The new party also filed a Notice of Constitutional Question regarding the Crown's duty to consult Indigenous groups, which the Tribunal scheduled to be heard as a motion for directions.

The Tribunal declined the applicant's request to schedule a hearing, finding it premature, and instead scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act regarding the cash-in-lieu fee for parkland paid under protest to the municipality.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence on August 24, 2026, by videoconference.

The parties were directed to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Brantford's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a medical clinic.

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

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding consent and minor variance applications to sever a property into three lots, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Town of Fort Erie indicated it would not oppose the applications provided its conditions were met.

An adjacent landowner, 4407 Erie Road Holding LLC, requested party status to raise planning, drainage, and environmental concerns.

The Tribunal granted party status to the adjacent landowner, finding its participation necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues, especially given the Town's position.

Participant status was also granted to several individuals, and a four-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development with a townhouse block.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the Official Plan Amendment, agreeing that the subject lands are developable and not provincially significant wetlands.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Official Plan Amendment based on expert planning and ecological evidence, and scheduled a further hearing to address the remaining zoning and subdivision appeals.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the conservation authority's refusal of a development permit application for a six-storey residential building.

The parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing as they were still working on documents and technical studies.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment request and ordered the merit hearing adjourned sine die, with a written update required by January 30, 2026.

The applicant appealed the City of St. Catharines Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variance applications to increase the maximum floor area of accessory dwelling units from 80.0 square metres to 87.77 square metres.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the units remained subordinate to the principal dwelling and there was no evidence of unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

Haastown Holdings Preston Inc. appealed the City of Cambridge's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted intensification on its site, but at a lesser scale than Haastown proposed.

A neighbouring resident also appealed the Zoning By-law Amendment, arguing against the density and traffic impacts.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed Haastown's appeals in part, approving its revised proposal for three residential towers of 22, 20, and 17 storeys with up to 635 units.

The Tribunal found that the site's location within a Major Transit Station Area supported the higher density to promote transit use, and that the proposed design achieved compatibility with the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal also found that traffic impacts were acceptable, heritage attributes of an adjacent property would be conserved, and that Holding provisions were unnecessary as outstanding matters could be addressed through Site Plan Approval.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs of $69,649.87 against the Township following a successful appeal regarding a Temporary Use By-Law.

The moving party alleged the Township and its planning witness exhibited unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith conduct.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the Township's planning staff had reversed their opinions and treated the moving party unfairly prior to the appeal, their conduct during the actual proceeding did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under Rule 23.9.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying six of eight requested minor variances to permit a two-storey accessory dwelling unit over an existing detached garage.

The adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the appeal, raising concerns about proximity, privacy, and massing.

The Tribunal found that while two variances regarding distance between buildings and parking met the four tests, the remaining six variances regarding setbacks and height did not.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the neighbour's land use planner that the proposed built form was incompatible with the adjacent dwelling and would negatively impact the neighbour's primary living area.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and approved a procedural order.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard and approved a settlement between BSC Landco Inc. and the City regarding the property at 555 Greenwich Street.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to rezone a portion of the property from 'Core Natural' to a 'Holding - General Employment' zone, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding the satisfaction of conditions for the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The parties confirmed that two of the three conditions had been met, but the appellant had not provided a satisfactory Contingency Odour Management Plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing on the merits to address the outstanding condition and directed the parties to agree on exchange dates for witness materials.

The appellant appealed the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal of a development permit application for a six-storey residential building in a regulated area of Spencer Creek.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal to extend a temporary use by-law permitting the outdoor storage of rain barrels and composters on a portion of the subject property, as well as the enactment of an interim control by-law suspending further land use planning changes.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the temporary use by-law in part, extending the use for three years and removing a condition prohibiting additional barrels, finding that the use was temporary, did not create detrimental effects, and represented good planning during the ongoing policy review.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the interim control by-law, finding it was lawfully enacted for a legitimate planning purpose to allow the Township to review its land use policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted requests from several parties to withdraw their appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a request by Losani Homes to consolidate its site-specific appeals of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law with its appeals of privately-initiated applications for the same properties, finding it would be an effective and efficient use of resources.

Further Case Management Conference dates were scheduled.

A case management conference was held to address outstanding conditions from an interim order approving an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

The appellant had satisfied two of three conditions but requested a final 60-day extension to demonstrate compliance with the odour mitigation condition.

The Tribunal granted the extension and scheduled a further case management conference, noting that a hearing on the merits may be scheduled if the condition remains unsatisfied.

A Case Management Conference was held to prepare for a merit hearing regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the construction of three residential towers.

The parties advised that discussions are ongoing to reduce the issues on the Issues List.

The Tribunal issued directions for the parties to continue their discussions and follow the procedural order steps.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed mixed-use development, a neighbouring industrial company requested party status.

The applicant objected, arguing that a stand-alone motion was required and that the company's involvement would duplicate issues raised by other industrial parties.

The Tribunal found that a stand-alone motion was unnecessary and granted the company party status, noting its unique interests as a neighbouring industry and the need for its presence to adjudicate the issues effectively.