Cristin Hunt

The Niagara Escarpment Commission proposed an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan to allow for the development of on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas, among other changes.

Hearing Officers were appointed to receive representations on the proposed amendment.

The Hearing Officers recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments, finding that they meet the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Plan, are consistent with Provincial policies, and are justified.

The amendments include allowing agricultural uses in Earth Science ANSIs, permitting expansions to existing agricultural buildings in key natural heritage features, allowing maple sugar harvesting in the Escarpment Natural Area, and permitting agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses outside of prime agricultural areas in the Escarpment Protection Area.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township of Seguin's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the redevelopment of a cottage and boathouse.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Lake Joseph North Association on consent.

The parties expressed openness to mediation, and the Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order, scheduling a three-day video hearing for September 2025.

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 Tribunal held a telephone conference call to receive a status update on the fulfilment of conditions imposed in a previous Interim Order regarding appeals of a failure to adopt an Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment.

The parties provided updates on the outstanding conditions, including the final form of the instruments, a Transportation Impact Study addendum, and a peer review of a combined noise and vibration study.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Order setting deadlines for further updates and directing the City to request prioritization of the peer review.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural order dates for a zoning by-law amendment appeal regarding a proposed 6-storey mixed-use building in Brantford.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the dates for exchanging witness statements, challenging expert witnesses, and expert witness meetings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference for February 27, 2025, and ordered the parties to submit a final draft Procedural Order, Issues List, and a draft Order relating to the OPA by December 16, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by 1000403721 Ontario Corp. against the City of Brantford's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to permit the redevelopment of the site with a 6-storey mixed-use building.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on April 8, 2025, for four days.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 35-storey residential building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it was an overdevelopment with insufficient setbacks and separation distances that would negatively impact future land assembly.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding that land assembly on adjacent properties was unlikely due to constraints such as the City's rental replacement policy.

The Tribunal concluded the proposal was consistent with the PPS, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, contingent on the satisfaction of final conditions.