6 total
Hearing converted to Case Management Conference to allow parties to finalize settlement of consent conditions.
The appellants appealed conditions of consent relating to parkland dedication and archaeological studies for three severed lots.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties requested an adjournment on consent, noting that minutes of settlement had been reached regarding the parkland dedication conditions and productive discussions were ongoing regarding the archaeological condition.
The Tribunal granted the adjournment and converted the hearing to a Case Management Conference, scheduling a future contested settlement hearing.
Party status granted and second Case Management Conference scheduled in appeals of Whitby Official Plan Amendment.
The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Whitby's Official Plan Amendment No. 126.
The appellants, owners of properties on Brock Street North, appealed the OPA to protect their respective mixed-use redevelopment proposals.
Bara Group (Whitby) Inc. requested and was granted party status.
The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 28, 2024, to allow the parties further time for dialogue and to present options to Town Council.
Tribunal grants party and participant status and schedules 10-day hearing for planning appeals.
At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a site-specific Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted Party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham and Participant status to a local resident on consent.
The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits and directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.
Transit authority's decision requiring disabled user to provide personal care assistant quashed as unreasonable barrier.
The applicant, a person with disabilities, had used specialized transit services unconditionally for 8 years.
The respondent reviewed his eligibility and changed it to conditional, requiring him to use conventional transit for part of his trip accompanied by a personal care assistant at his own expense.
The applicant sought judicial review.
The Divisional Court found the decision unreasonable as it erected a barrier rather than removing one, contrary to the purpose of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.
The decision was quashed and the applicant's unconditional eligibility was restored.
Appeals allowed; consents and minor variances granted for four-lot residential infill development.
The applicant appealed the refusal of minor variance and consent applications by the City of Pickering and the Regional Municipality of Durham.
The applications sought to sever a residential lot into four parcels for single-detached dwellings and requested variances for lot frontage, side yard setbacks, and chimney breast projections.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposal represented appropriate infill development consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.
The Tribunal authorized the variances and granted provisional consents subject to conditions.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal correctly found appellant ineligible for Ontario Works due to excess vehicle assets.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Social Benefits Tribunal upholding the denial of her Ontario Works benefits due to having assets in excess of the allowable limit.
The Tribunal found that the appellant owned three vehicles, the value of which exceeded the $5,000 limit for a single person.
On appeal, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law by equating legal ownership with the definition of an 'asset' under the Act and failing to consider if the vehicles were exempt.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal made no error in law as the appellant failed to adduce evidence that the vehicles were inaccessible or exempt under the regulations.
