Carolina Nowak Campos

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the development of a six-storey, 23-unit apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions in parking requirements, an increase in maximum residential density, and a reduction in the minimum rear setback.

The City took no position on the appeal.

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

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

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application within the prescribed timeframe.

The amendment sought to redesignate lands from Restricted Agricultural Area to Residential.

The parties indicated they were close to a settlement and requested a further CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and granted participant status to abutting neighbours.

The applicant sought minor variances and consents to sever a corner lot to facilitate the construction of two new detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consents subject to conditions and authorized the minor variance subject to a site plan condition.

A neighbour appealed both decisions, arguing the variance was major, while the applicant appealed the site plan condition.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant's appeal and dismissed the neighbour's appeals, finding that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act and would preserve high-priority trees, and that the consents satisfied the criteria under section 51(24).

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order following a case management conference regarding appeals of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming's Official Plan Amendments 51 and 54.

The appeals concern a request to permit a surplus farm dwelling severance and the Town's five-year review of its Official Plan.

The Order sets out the hearing schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the video hearing scheduled to commence on December 11, 2023.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal addressed two motions regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendments 51 and 54.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together.

The Tribunal also ordered the appellant to provide substantive responses to the Town's request for particulars on a without prejudice basis.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for December 2023.

The appellant appealed zoning by-law amendments that limited the aggregate number of bedrooms on low-density residential lots and restricted the height of detached additional residential units to that of other accessory structures.

The appellant argued these restrictions constituted 'people zoning' and conflicted with the Building Code Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the regulations were appropriate performance standards to manage intensity and built form, represented good planning, and were protected from appeal under s. 34(19.1) of the Planning Act.

The moving party, a heritage foundation, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that granted zoning and Official Plan amendments to allow the construction of two high-rise buildings in downtown Kingston.

The moving party argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to interpret the Official Plan as a whole and incorrectly interpreting specific compatibility criteria.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Tribunal's balancing of the Official Plan's competing objectives of heritage preservation and urban intensification was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable error of law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Amber Peak Developments Inc. against the City of Kingston's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and corresponding Zoning By-law Amendments.

The Tribunal noted that only issues related to the number of bedrooms and the height of accessory buildings would proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The parties agreed to a two-day video hearing for expert testimony followed by written legal submissions.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and dispensed with the need for a formal Procedural Order.

The appellants appealed their assessments for the construction and future maintenance costs of the Bruce Beach Municipal Drain Phase 1 under section 54 of the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments should be reduced or eliminated due to lack of benefit and alleged negligence by the municipality in managing drainage infrastructure.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the properties did benefit from the drainage works and that the assessments were fairly and reasonably calculated using the Todgham method.

The moving parties brought a motion requesting an extension of time to file an appeal under Section 48 of the Drainage Act regarding a municipal drain.

The municipality opposed the motion, arguing prejudice as drainage work had already commenced under an emergency authorization.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties had a bona fide intention to appeal, the municipality would be prejudiced, the delay was unexplained, and the proposed appeal lacked merit as it misunderstood the purpose and scope of the Act.

Multiple appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's enactment of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment permitting a nine-storey, 62-unit residential apartment building.

The appellants raised concerns regarding shadow impacts, traffic safety, tree preservation, and conformity with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's and City's experts, finding that the proposed development would not create undue adverse impacts on traffic or forestry.

The Tribunal concluded that the amendment has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to consider a proposed settlement of appeals by McMaster University against the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-laws.

The parties agreed to amend the 2019 DC By-law to implement a statutory exemption for university development under the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities Act.

Finding the proposed amendment fair and reasonable, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendment.

The City of Kingston brought a motion to dismiss appeals by the appellant regarding an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments pertaining to additional residential units (ARUs).

The City argued the appeals were barred by sections 17(24.1) and 34(19.1) of the Planning Act, which prohibit appeals of policies and by-laws authorizing ARUs.

The appellant argued the amendments imposed requirements that effectively prohibited ARUs, rendering them ultra vires and raising a triable issue.

The Tribunal allowed the motion in part, dismissing most of the appeals as barred by statute because they related to reasonable requirements or standards.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the height restriction on detached accessory buildings to proceed to a hearing, finding it raised a potentially triable issue of prohibition.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-laws.

The parties advised that Tribunal-led mediation had resulted in an agreement in principle for the McMaster University appeals.

The Tribunal consolidated the McMaster appeals and scheduled a potential settlement hearing.

The Tribunal also heard updates regarding the West End Home Builders' Association and 2362302 Ontario Inc. appeals, noting significant progress, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow discussions to continue.

The applicant property owner brought a motion for leave to amend its notice of application regarding a disputed agreement of purchase and sale.

The proposed amendments sought to add a fixed closing date and to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that the respondent developer had obtained in a separate action.

The court granted leave to add the fixed closing date, as the respondent alleged no prejudice.

However, the court refused leave to add the request to discharge the CPL, finding that the proposed amendment failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and constituted an improper collateral attack on an order made in a separate proceeding.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of an application to sever a residential property into two lots.

The City opposed the severance, arguing that the reduced lot frontages would destabilize the neighbourhood and did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, finding that the proposed lots were compatible with the eclectic lot fabric of the surrounding area, which included several narrow lots.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Hamilton's Development Charges By-law.

The Tribunal received draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists, and was updated on scheduled mediation and settlement discussions.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 20, 2021.

The applicants sought a minor variance to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) from an existing livestock operation from 81 metres to 39 metres to permit the creation of a new residential lot.

The appellant, a neighbouring property owner, appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval, arguing that the higher density Type B MDS guidelines should apply.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding that the Type A MDS calculation was correct, the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, and the proposed rural residential development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the City's Official Plan.

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever a property and for associated minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The City did not appear to oppose the appeal.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert evidence in architecture, urban design, and land use planning that the proposed development was a better fit for the neighbourhood than the larger as-of-right semi-detached building permitted by the zoning.

The Tribunal found that the consent applications had due regard for provincial interests and met the statutory criteria, and that the variances satisfied the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The appellant developer appealed a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision that repealed a site-specific zoning by-law amendment, preventing the construction of a 16-storey mixed-use building in downtown Kingston.

The Tribunal had found the development incompatible with the area's heritage character and Official Plan policies.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by prioritizing heritage over intensification, misapplying zoning by-laws, and improperly imposing height restrictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal's balancing of competing policies and assessment of the public interest involved questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable errors of law.