Brian Duxbury

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application sought to permit an Additional Residential Unit within a proposed machinery storage building on agricultural lands.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order on consent, established the Issues List, and scheduled a two-day video hearing for December 2023.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a draft plan of subdivision.

A case management conference was held to organize the appeals.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner on consent, as the proposed development would share certain facilities and services.

The Tribunal approved the procedural order and scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals concerning a proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment in the City of Cambridge.

The amendments seek to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial development, including a 10-storey building.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment for properties in the City of Cambridge.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 25-day video hearing to commence in March 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control applications for a high-density residential development.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, approved a revised Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Losani Homes against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List.

Adjacent property owners, who were previously granted Party status, agreed to change their status to Participants.

The Tribunal confirmed the five-day hearing will commence on November 20, 2023.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Canadian National Railway Company against the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 447-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to City Housing Hamilton Corporation on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and the parties indicated they were exploring Tribunal-led mediation.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, finding reasonable grounds under s. 17(44.2.2) of the Planning Act.

Participant status was also granted to a former resident.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to hear the Town's motion to bring the unappealed portions of the amendments into force.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by the lower court judge on February 17, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The appellant challenged a municipal by-law regulating the destruction or injury of trees and woodlands, arguing it conflicted with Crown patents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the by-law, finding that Crown patents, as grants of title, do not immunize land or owners from municipal regulation exercised under the Municipal Act.

The court also assumed, without deciding, that the appellant had standing.

The appeal was dismissed.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment for a proposed mixed-use development, the Tribunal noted that the parties had not made significant progress in scoping the Issues List as previously ordered.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to allow the parties additional time to refine the Issues List and ordered that a revised draft Procedural Order be provided in advance.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial development in the City of Cambridge.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and party status to the applicant and municipalities on the respective files.

The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the appeals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to refine the issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in the City of Cambridge.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and party status to the applicant, the City, and the Region on the respective files.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals and directed the parties to refine their issues list before scheduling a hearing on the merits.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals concerning the Region of Waterloo's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 128.

The order sets out the organization of the video hearing scheduled for November 6, 2023, the requirements before the hearing including the exchange of witness statements and expert reports, and the issues list.

The appellant appealed the Urban Hamilton Official Plan regarding the application of Natural Heritage System policies to its site.

Following settlement discussions, the parties agreed to an Official Plan Amendment that removes the Natural Heritage System and Significant Woodlands overlays from a small portion of the site to facilitate a residential development, while protecting 1.15 hectares of woodland.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the amendment, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The applicant sought to quash the Regional Municipality of Niagara's Woodland Conservation Bylaw, arguing it was ultra vires, conflicted with a historic Crown Patent and provincial statutes, and was impermissibly vague.

The applicant contended that the Crown's previous relinquishment of tree reservations meant the municipality could not regulate tree destruction on the property.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the bylaw was a valid exercise of the municipality's regulatory powers under section 135 of the Municipal Act.

The court held that the Crown Patent did not supersede provincial or municipal authority to regulate land use, and the bylaw's definitions were sufficiently clear.

The Town of Pelham adopted an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBLA) to regulate indoor cannabis and industrial hemp cultivation, primarily to address odour concerns.

Several cannabis producers appealed.

Prior to the hearing, Phoena withdrew its appeal, and Redecan reached a settlement with the Town, which the Tribunal approved as representing good planning.

Woodstock continued its appeal, arguing it should be recognized as an existing facility and granted a site-specific exception.

The Tribunal dismissed Woodstock's appeal, noting it had never formally filed an application and must pursue approvals through the standard process established by the new OPA.

The plaintiffs brought a motion requiring the defendants, as Estate Trustees, to pass the accounts.

After six adjournments, the plaintiffs requested a further deferral to address unanswered questions.

The court declined to prolong the matter, noting the depletion of estate assets, and dismissed the motion on a without prejudice basis.

The plaintiffs also consented to dismiss the claim against one defendant.

The court awarded costs of $5,100 for the dismissed claim and $16,156.27 for the motion to the defendants, payable forthwith by the plaintiffs.

The Region of Waterloo brought a motion seeking approval of a proposed final revision of the Issues List in the Procedural Order governing the merits hearing of an appeal concerning Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2.

The Region argued that a prior Tribunal decision had made an issue estoppel finding that restricted the appellants from raising certain provincial policy and plan issues.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the prior estoppel decision was binding and had been upheld by the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order containing an Issues List in accordance with the prior estoppel decision.

The applicant appealed the City of Kitchener's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13 and 16-storey mixed-use building on lands designated Arterial Commercial.

The City and Region opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the planned function of the area and lacked adequate pedestrian and transit infrastructure.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the proposed infill intensification was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.