David Donnelly

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal referred by the Ministry of Natural Resources relating to an application for a Class A aggregate license for a proposed pit.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a nine-day merit hearing, and encouraged the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law 24-024.

Settlement discussions were ongoing for some appeals, while others were deferred pending a related review application.

A request for party status by Concerned Citizens of King Township and Save The Oak Ridges Moraine was opposed and deferred.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled for February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. regarding the proposed expansion of the Nelson Quarry in Burlington.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the 60-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 4, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical omission in its April 24, 2024 decision.

The amendment adds that the Tribunal had received a Participant Status Request from Shelagh Hurley and granted her Participant status.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate its appeal under the Planning Act regarding a zoning by-law amendment with a referral under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A Pit Below Water licence.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, finding that consolidation would provide efficiencies as the matters involve the same property, common issues, and the same witnesses.

A 13-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Township of Muskoka Lakes brought a motion to dismiss a third-party appeal of its new Official Plan by Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association, arguing the appeal was deemed dismissed under the transition provisions of Bill 185 (Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024).

The Tribunal found that while Our Muskoka did not meet the definition of a 'specified person' under the Planning Act, its appeal remained valid under the transition exception in s. 17(36.0.2)(b) because it was appealing the same decision (the approval of the Official Plan) as other valid appellants.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed, allowing the appeal to continue.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by four landowners against the Township of King's new comprehensive Zoning By-Law 24-028.

The parties agreed to categorize the grounds of appeal into three main groups, with some issues to be deferred pending the outcome of a related jurisdictional review in another proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to allow the parties further time to scope the issues, potentially resolve minor site-specific corrections, and address pending party status requests from two citizens' groups.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals/groups.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to determine the validity of one of the appeals in light of Bill 185.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing until the issues list is finalized, and directed the parties to submit a finalized issues list and draft procedural order prior to the next Case Management Conference.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a gravel pit expansion, the Tribunal heard two motions.

A motion to adjourn the CMC to allow the Chiefs of Ontario to assess consultation adequacy was dismissed, as they were not a party and no prejudice would result from proceeding.

A motion by the applicant to consolidate the Planning Act appeals with a newly referred Aggregate Resources Act matter was granted, as the matters relate to the same property and proposal, and consolidation would ensure efficiency and avoid predetermination of issues.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit the expansion of a mineral aggregate operation.

At a case management conference, the applicant requested a hearing date be set despite a concurrent Aggregate Resources Act application not yet being referred to the Tribunal.

A party opposed setting a date, arguing the constitutional duty to consult First Nations had not been met.

The Tribunal found it premature to set a hearing date due to uncertainty regarding the scope of issues and directed a third case management conference.

The Tribunal also directed that any constitutional arguments must be brought by formal written motion with proper notice.

The City of Burlington brought a motion for directions to amend a Notice of Undertaking filed by Nelson Aggregate Co. regarding the proposed expansion of the Burlington Quarry.

The City sought to compel the consolidation of potential future hearings for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW), an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA), and an Aggregate Resources Act site plan amendment into the current consolidated proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the City's request to include the site plan amendment, finding no indication that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry intended to propose amendments that would trigger a hearing.

The Tribunal also exercised its discretion under O. Reg. 351/21 to defer the PTTW and ECA applications until it is determined whether hearings will actually be required for those approvals, noting that the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks typically requires land use approvals to be in place before issuing such permits.

The Tribunal confirmed the consolidation of the five existing appeals.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and site plan control to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a revised 113-unit development.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an application by Reeves Construction Limited for a Category 3, Class A Licence for a proposed gravel pit.

The Tribunal approved a Procedural Order and Issues List, encouraged settlement discussions, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing commencing October 21, 2024.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate its appeal of a draft plan of subdivision under the Planning Act with appeals of a development permit under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Tribunal found that the statutory requirements for consolidation under section 21 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act were met.

The Tribunal also determined that in a consolidated hearing, it has the authority to stand in the shoes of the Minister to make any decision that could be made after the hearing.

The undisputed motion for a consolidated hearing was granted.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the redevelopment of portions of an existing golf course into residential lots and a mid-rise or townhouse block.

The City and local residents' associations opposed the development, arguing it would result in the loss of open space, remove mature trees, and undermine the character of the established community.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence that the development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, appropriately manages stormwater and natural hazards, and provides needed housing through intensification.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a 136-unit residential subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

At a scheduled settlement hearing, the parties advised that they had settled in principle but required more time to finalize the settlement documentation.

The Tribunal scheduled a further settlement hearing for June 17, 2024, and directed the parties to submit their materials in advance.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan, several community groups and individuals requested party or participant status.

Applying the Oakville Factors and the requirements of the Planning Act, the Tribunal granted party status to four cottage and stakeholder associations, finding their involvement would assist in the effective adjudication of the issues without causing undue prejudice.

The Tribunal denied party status to two individuals, finding their concerns were either site-specific or better suited for participant status, and granted participant status to one of them.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 88-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Highland Creature Corporation and participant status to three individuals and organizations.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Skycroft Campground (2011) Ltd. against the Township of South Frontenac's refusal of applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to permit additional campsites.

The Tribunal granted party status to Protect Opinicon Inc. and Queen's University, directed the parties to submit an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 15-day merit hearing for January 2025.

The City of Burlington brought an uncontested motion for partial approval of its new Official Plan.

The motion sought approval for policies that were either not subject to appeal or modified to reflect existing site-specific approvals from the 1997 Official Plan.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the City's Senior Planner, the Tribunal found that the policies satisfied all statutory tests, were consistent with provincial policies, represented good planning, and were in the public interest.

The motion for partial approval was granted.