Chantal deSereville

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment No. 119.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in the appearances section and schedule of a previous decision.

During the CMC, the Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Fairview LP, set procedural dates for the City's anticipated Motion for Partial Approval, and converted a scheduled 10-day hearing for Phase 1C (Aggregates) into a one-day written hearing to consider a settlement.

The Tribunal also directed the City to initiate the mediation assessment process for unresolved policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal granted party status to a non-appellant, set procedural dates for the City's anticipated Motion for Partial Approval, and converted a scheduled 10-day hearing for Phase 1C (Aggregates) into a one-day written hearing following a settlement between the parties.

The Tribunal also directed the City to initiate the mediation assessment process for remaining unapproved policies.

The applicant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use residential building, as well as appealing a heritage designation by-law for a portion of the subject lands.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a nine-storey building with 545 residential units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and municipal plans, representing good transit-oriented development.

The Tribunal also found the property had no cultural heritage value and directed the repeal of the heritage by-law.

The appeals were allowed on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending fulfillment of conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval within the statutory timeframe.

The applications seek to facilitate the development of 53 residential units in stacked townhouses with a ground-floor commercial unit.

At the Case Management Conference, the parties requested a further date to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled an additional Case Management Conference for November 23, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Camarro Developments Inc. against the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton and the Canadian National Railway Company (CN), finding their involvement necessary to adjudicate the issues effectively.

Participant status was granted to three individuals/groups.

The Tribunal also approved the Draft Procedural Order and scheduled an 11-day merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a six-storey, 155-unit purpose-built rental apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the unit count to 147 and making other design modifications.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal represents an appropriate intensification of an underutilized site, conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the failure of the City of Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium to permit 11 single detached homes.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development and conditions of draft approval were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's Parkland Dedication By-law No. 62-2022 under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

At the Case Management Conference, the City advised that it was preparing a new Parkland Dedication By-law expected to be presented to City Council in July 2023, which may address the appellants' concerns.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 8, 2023, to update the Tribunal on the status of the new by-law and settlement discussions.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's adoption of a Community Benefits Charge By-law under s. 37(17) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that a settlement had been reached among most parties, but one appellant raised an issue regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction to vary the prescribed 4% charge.

The Tribunal directed that appellant to bring a motion on the jurisdictional issue and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant subsequently withdrew its appeal, and the Tribunal converted the scheduled hearing to consider the settlement among the remaining parties.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that their current use of lands was a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The application judge found that the use had changed significantly from the prior legal non-conforming use and that the appellants had abandoned the prior use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's factual findings and her conclusion that the appellants failed to establish a continuing legal non-conforming use.

The court also confirmed the admissibility of property complaints as factual matters from records kept in the ordinary course of business.

Mattamy brought a motion to consolidate two competing Official Plan Amendment (OPA) appeals regarding the Southwest Georgetown secondary plan, and to have its site-specific zoning and draft plan appeals heard together with the OPA appeals.

The Town brought a preliminary motion to strike the reply affidavit of Mattamy's planning expert, arguing it contained legal advocacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to strike, finding the affidavit relevant but noting it would separate the planning opinion from the advocacy.

The Tribunal dismissed Mattamy's motion in its entirety, finding that hearing the site-specific appeals together with the OPA appeals would be premature, potentially prejudicial to the approval authorities, and could inappropriately invert the planning hierarchy.

The Tribunal also found no appreciable benefit to formally consolidating the two OPA appeals.

The applicant, operator of a hookah lounge, brought an application to quash the Region of Durham's Smoking By-law No. 28-2019, which prohibited smoking and vaping in public places including hookah lounges.

The applicant argued the By-law was an ultra vires attempt to regulate business and that subsequent changes to the By-law's set fines schedule invalidated it.

The court found that while the application to quash under the Municipal Act was statute-barred, the request for declaratory relief was not.

On the merits, the court held the By-law was a valid exercise of the municipality's power to protect public health and safety, not an improper regulation of business.

The court also found that changes to the set fines schedule by the Regional Senior Justice did not invalidate the By-law.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for a 19-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to several residents' associations and a condominium corporation, and participant status to the Toronto Lands Corporation.

A 10-day hearing and a further 1-day CMC were scheduled, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by Cadillac Fairview Corporation, CP REIT Ontario Properties, and BMO Assurance Company against the City of London's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 745 (Masonville Secondary Plan Area).

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

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's decision to impose a development charge of $924,705.00 for converting an industrial building into a self-storage facility.

The appellant argued that self-storage fell within the definition of 'Industrial Development' under the 2019 Development Charge By-law, which would have entitled it to a credit offsetting the entire charge.

The Tribunal found that the 2019 By-law, read in context with the underlying background study and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, intentionally excluded self-storage from the industrial rate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of London's new secondary plan for the Masonville Area.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the City's motion for an order under s. 17(27) of the Planning Act confirming that the unappealed portions of the secondary plan came into effect on November 26, 2021.

The Tribunal also scheduled a seven-day video hearing for the appeals to commence in June 2023.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 7-storey mixed-use residential building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted Party status to an adjacent landowner and Participant status to two individuals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address a potential consolidation request regarding an anticipated Ontario Heritage Act appeal and to finalize the Procedural Order.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and failure to decide on a consent application to create two new rural residential lots.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the County Official Plan, and complies with Minimum Distance Separation formulae.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the zoning amendment and provisional consent subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment regulating short-term rental accommodations.

The Tribunal addressed the settlement of a motion for the production of documents, finalized the Issues List and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a seven-day hearing for March 2022.