Brian Duxbury

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicants concerning the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on October 20, 2025, for 20 days.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. against Norfolk County's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed three-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a five-day merits hearing to commence by video on October 27, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant and party status to several individuals and entities, deferred one party status request, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 15-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day hearing regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal or neglect to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the hearing.

The Tribunal heard appeals regarding an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBLA) to permit the expansion of an existing place of worship located outside the Urban Boundary within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan Area (Specialty Crop Area).

The appellants argued that the expansion of a non-agricultural use in a prime agricultural area was inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and did not conform to the Greenbelt Plan's requirement that expansions bring the use more into conformity with the Plan.

The Tribunal found that the subject lands had not been farmed in 90 years, the expansion would occur entirely on the existing property, and there would be no adverse impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

The Tribunal interpreted the Greenbelt Plan's 'more in conformity' test as applying to conversions of uses, not expansions of existing buildings.

The Tribunal dismissed the OPA appeals, approved the OPA, and allowed the ZBLA appeal, finding the applications consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan, and representing good planning.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development with three residential towers in Cambridge.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, as they relate to the same subject lands and revised proposal.

The Tribunal also reviewed and approved the final draft Procedural Order, scheduling an 18-day video hearing to commence in October 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 3-storey, 24-unit residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included dedicating portions of the site containing a woodland feature to the City.

Based on uncontroverted planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment's denial of consent and minor variance applications to sever a property into four lots for the development of semi-detached dwellings with additional dwelling units.

A neighbourhood association opposed the development, raising concerns about intensification, compatibility, traffic, and stormwater management.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding the property appropriate for infill development and concluding the proposal would not cause adverse traffic or stormwater impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consent.

The appellants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment intended to facilitate the creation of three new residential lots.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were close to a settlement but required more time to resolve one remaining issue.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference and directed the parties to provide a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List, or confirmation of a resolution, prior to the next appearance.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the County of Norfolk's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision for a 102-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Lafarge Canada Inc. and participant status to Norfolk Disposal Services Ltd. on consent.

A five-day hearing was scheduled for March 2025, and the Tribunal approved the parties' draft Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,972.66.

Appeals were brought against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in Cambridge.

The applicant appealed a Holding Provision in the ZBA that required the realignment of an existing access easement to provide access to an abutting landlocked property.

A neighbouring property owner appealed both instruments, arguing they were premature until interconnected access was secured in the OPA.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, finding that the Holding Provision was an appropriate use of section 36 of the Planning Act, supported by the Official Plan, and represented good planning in the public interest by ensuring safe, two-way interconnected access.

The Tribunal declined to modify the OPA, concluding the Holding Provision sufficiently addressed the access issue.

During a telephone conference call, the Tribunal addressed a dispute regarding the handling of an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) prepared by expert witnesses.

Counsel for one of the parties had substantively revised the ASF to align wording with planning documents and preserve questions of law.

The Tribunal directed that the ASF must be submitted as signed by the experts, and that counsel are not permitted to alter the ASF beyond visual formatting or grammatical corrections, as doing so interferes with the outcome of the experts' meeting.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Cambridge's passing of Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 24-034, which permits a mixed-use development with three residential towers.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Waterloo without opposition.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow for the pending appeal of a related Official Plan Amendment and to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a high-density residential development.

The parties reached a settlement involving reduced tower heights and other modifications.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part and the amendments approved in principle.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to redevelop a golf course into a residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Town of Fort Erie's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to facilitate the creation of two new residential lots.

The parties indicated they were engaging in private settlement discussions and requested additional time.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 3, 2024, and directed the parties to provide a Draft Procedural Order or status update by September 23, 2024.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed its motion for directions.

The moving party had argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make a prior consent order regarding a zoning by-law amendment because the relevant 'bonusing regime' under the Planning Act had been repealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, which had dismissed the motion on procedural grounds because it should have been brought as a request for review under Rule 25 of the Tribunal's Rules and was out of time.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings leading up to a hearing scheduled for November 12, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 3-storey condominium with 24 residential units.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, the order of evidence, and a summary of procedural dates.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 20-storey and 18-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represented over-intensification and was not compatible with the existing low-to-mid-rise neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal also noted the lack of a required Visual Impact Assessment to evaluate impacts on adjacent cultural heritage resources, including Battlefield Park.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment was not approved.