David Donnelly

The appellant appealed the County's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit a 337-unit seasonal park model trailer site on a 38.6-hectare parcel along Lake Ontario.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that modified the original applications to address concerns regarding seasonal occupancy, wildlife corridors, landscape details, and transportation.

The Tribunal approved the settlement in principle, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of agreed-upon conditions.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 662-unit residential subdivision on the former Board of Trade Golf Course in Vaughan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Draft Procedural Order and noted the applicant's intent to bring a motion to dismiss one of the appeals.

Darien Aggregates Inc. brought a motion to determine whether an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment by North Shore Environmental Resource Advocates Inc. was moot.

The zoning by-law amendment permitted a new quarry on Crown land.

Darien argued that under s. 34(9) of the Aggregate Resources Act, a zoning by-law cannot prohibit or regulate the establishment of a quarry on Crown land, rendering the appeal moot.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the outcome of the appeal would have no practical effect on the Ministry's ability to issue an aggregate permit.

The Tribunal also held that municipal by-laws cannot regulate the operation of quarries on Crown land.

The motion was allowed and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to strike portions of a witness statement filed by the appellant's lay witness, which contained opinion evidence on cultural heritage and appended an expert report.

The appellant had previously advised it would not call a cultural heritage expert, leading the other parties to withdraw their own experts.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the lay witness was not qualified to give expert opinion evidence on cultural heritage and that appending the expert report without calling the expert was improper and unfair, as it prevented cross-examination.

The witness statement was struck in its entirety, with leave to file a fresh statement omitting the improper evidence.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Township's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a sand and gravel extraction operation.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Friends of Ball’s Bridge and Little Lakes and participant status to two individuals.

A 10-day merits hearing was scheduled for September 2023, and the Procedural Order was approved.

The Appellant brought a motion for site access to conduct additional environmental studies, and the Applicant brought a motion to strike several witnesses from the Appellant's witness list.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for site access, finding it inappropriate and academic given the upcoming deadlines.

The Tribunal granted the motion to strike in part, striking an economic impact witness for lack of relevance, an environmental expert for reasonable apprehension of bias, and two lay witnesses who had already been granted participant status.

The Tribunal also ordered that multiple experts in the same disciplines (land use planning and wetland assessment) be called as panels to avoid duplication of evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township of Guelph Eramosa's decision to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment for a rural industrial facility.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits for February 2023.

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.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-rise residential development, the Tribunal addressed the draft Procedural Order, mediation opportunities, and the Issues List.

The Tribunal excluded three disputed issues relating to consistency and conformity with provincial plans from the Issues List because they were not raised in the appellant's notice of appeal.

An eight-day video hearing was scheduled.

A third and final Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law, and plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal confirmed that the hearing will proceed by video, as in-person hearings cannot be accommodated.

The applicant withdrew a request to introduce expert evidence-in-chief exclusively through written statements, resolving the final procedural issue.

The 15-day video hearing will proceed as scheduled.

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent for the hearing of appeals by 738489 Ontario Limited regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for a mixed-use development.

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

The appellant appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the municipality, which would permit a 337-unit model trailer park on a 38.6-hectare parcel of land.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties agreed that approximately 15 days were required for the hearing of the merits.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day video hearing and directed the parties to finalize and submit the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List for final approval.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law, the Tribunal considered 134 new requests for participant status.

Because none of the requestors attended the hearing as required by the Notice of Hearing, the Tribunal denied them participant status.

However, the Tribunal permitted counsel for the parties to assist the requestors in organizing common Participant Statements to be considered at the next hearing event.

The Tribunal also approved a draft Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by Fowler Construction Company Ltd. regarding the Township of Ramara's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry.

The order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, order of evidence, and filing deadlines for witness statements and expert reports.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for a 25-day video hearing regarding appeals by Fowler Construction Company Ltd. against the Township of Ramara's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The amendments are sought to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry area.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, the issues list, and the procedural requirements for the parties, including the exchange of expert witness statements and visual evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Friends of South Shore against Prince Edward County's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments would permit a 337-unit model trailer park.

The Tribunal addressed requests for status, granting participant status to several individuals and an unincorporated residents' group.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the draft procedural order.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's enactment of zoning by-law amendments permitting a mixed-use development at 540-544 King Street West.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal and settlement are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represent good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to amend the zoning by-laws in accordance with the settlement.

Homestead Land Holdings Limited appealed the City of Kingston's failure to make a decision on site-specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit two high-rise mixed-use developments on brownfield sites in the downtown North Block.

The City and Homestead subsequently reached a settlement supporting revised proposals.

The Frontenac Heritage Foundation opposed the developments, arguing they would adversely impact nearby heritage conservation districts and character areas due to their height and visual intrusion.

The Tribunal found the revised proposals compatible with the surrounding built form, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, noting the sites were designated for major development and intensification.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit aggregate extraction on Crown lands.

The parties raised a threshold issue regarding whether recent amendments to the Aggregate Resources Act render the appeal moot.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion to determine whether the Aggregate Resources Act permits municipal by-laws to regulate quarries on Crown land and whether the appeal is moot.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in the Title of Proceeding of a decision issued on September 22, 2021.

The amendment was made pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.