Carly Emmett

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the new Official Plan for the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address procedural matters and a motion by the Town to bring unappealed portions of the Official Plan into force.

The applicants, the Township of Clearview and the County of Simcoe, sought a declaration that a deviation road crossing the respondent's property was a public highway and requested rectification of title.

The respondent argued that the road was never a public highway, that a 1966 tax sale transferred the land to private ownership, and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the road was dedicated and accepted as a public highway in the 1800s.

The court held that the 1966 tax deed could not validly transfer a public highway, and that the municipality's claim was not barred by the Limitations Act or the doctrine of laches.

The application was granted, the road was declared a public highway, and rectification of the register was ordered.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order for appeals against the County of Simcoe's approval of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

Lorablue Developments Inc. requested an adjournment of its appeal, arguing it was site-specific and required ecological studies.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the appeal included broad policy issues that should be addressed at the scheduled hearing, though the parties could later agree to defer the issues if narrowed.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 23, 2025.

The amendment revised paragraph 6 to update the deadlines for certain appellants to submit revisions to their issues lists on consent.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant Party Status to three entities on consent, noting they must shelter under the appellants' issues.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 25-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to continue scoping issues and exploring settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township of King Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a two-storey backyard accessory structure.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement modifying the requested building height variance and adding conditions.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a minor variance application to relocate a previously approved detached accessory building containing an accessory residential dwelling unit.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement proposal approved by Township Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and environmental evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and had regard for matters of provincial interest.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated October 27, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court made no order as to costs.

Multiple appeals were brought under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act regarding the adoption of a new town-wide Official Plan by the Town of Collingwood, as approved by the County of Simcoe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four requesting entities without objection.

The Tribunal deferred three requests for party status until the next CMC or until an Issues List is formalized, to allow the proposed parties to identify which issues they will shelter under pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A second CMC was scheduled to consider the deferred requests and further organize the appeals.

The appellants objected to a by-law passed by the City of Richmond Hill designating their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the parties discussed the issues to be adjudicated and reviewed a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a final Issues List and subsequently set hearing dates for the matter.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling on a waterfront property.

The proposed variances sought relief for gross floor area, dwelling width, and building height.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, preferring the evidence of the appellant's land use planner.

The Tribunal found that the proposal satisfied the four-part test under the Planning Act, as it represented a reasonable expansion of a legal non-complying use, maintained the character of the area, and would not create negative impacts on adjacent properties.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of two Zoning By-law Amendments that would permit an additional single-detached dwelling and an on-farm diversified use on the subject lands.

The parties requested additional time to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List due to ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the remaining party to submit the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances for the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Cognashene Cottagers Association on consent.

A Procedural Order was approved and a two-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The applicant sought a Class A Licence for the operation of a proposed quarry above the groundwater level.

Several neighbours objected, raising concerns about noise, traffic, blasting, water quality, and environmental impacts.

The Tribunal considered the criteria under s 12(1) of the Aggregate Resources Act and accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the proposed quarry would have minimal impacts and comply with provincial standards.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to issue the licence subject to prescribed conditions, including an annual noise study.

The appellant appealed the Township's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 45 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2022-73, which sought to permit limited development on vacant lands subject to new septic and municipal water requirements.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement modifying OPA 45 to clarify hydrogeological protections, and the appellant withdrew the zoning appeal.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA 45 consistent with provincial policies and the County Official Plan, and approved it as modified.

The applicants appealed the Township of Tay Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a residential property to create a new lot.

The subject property is located in a rural shoreline area outside of a settlement area.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence of the Township that the proposed severance was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the Growth Plan, the County Official Plan, the Township Official Plan, or the Zoning By-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Applicant appealed the Town's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling and a dock closer to the shoreline.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, Steven Page, on consent of the Town and over the Applicant's objection.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a two-day merit hearing.

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Meaford's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a five-storey residential condominium.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending submission of the final planning instruments.

The moving parties sought costs against the Township of Clearview following the Township's withdrawal of its appeals regarding a development permit application and a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment.

The moving parties argued that the Township's conduct, which included multiple adjournment requests and a failure to properly classify the environmental assessment, was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Township argued that the Tribunal was functus officio following the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that it retained jurisdiction to award costs but dismissed the motions, finding that the Township's conduct did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The South Bracebridge Environmental Protection Group appealed the Town of Bracebridge's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a private school complex.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the applicable Official Plans, provided that the minimum buffer for wetlands and watercourses is increased from 15m to 30m.

The Tribunal also required the inclusion of a holding symbol that can only be lifted after site-specific environmental impact statements, including comprehensive amphibian and bat surveys, demonstrate no negative impacts on significant wildlife habitat.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement these amendments.