David Germain

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendment (NUC OPA) and site-specific zoning and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal adjudicated contested policies regarding food store requirements, public realm delivery, building heights, and minimum density targets.

The Tribunal also considered the site-specific appeal by Argo Neyagawa Corporation, determining that the developer was not required to provide a Village Square under the Master Parkland Agreement, but must accommodate a trail network.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the Tribunal approving the planning instruments in principle subject to modifications and finalization.

The appellant brought a motion for directions to prohibit the City of Hamilton from seeking an alternative position at the upcoming Phase 2 merit hearing.

The City's alternative position was that if the Tribunal approved an urban boundary expansion, the subject lands should be designated for employment uses rather than residential uses.

The Tribunal found that the approved Issues List did not capture an intent to present employment land needs evidence or support the alternative position.

The motion was granted, prohibiting the City from leading such evidence or seeking the alternative position at the Phase 2 hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an application by Port Colborne Quarries Inc. for a Class A licence to operate a quarry.

Several objectors failed to provide required information and vacated their standing.

Other objectors withdrew or changed their status to participants.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the remaining parties to govern the procedures leading up to a 15-day hearing scheduled to commence in July 2026.

The appellant brought a motion for disclosure of the City's hydraulic water and wastewater models, as well as data related to airport noise contours, in the context of an appeal concerning an urban boundary expansion.

The City consented to releasing the water model but opposed releasing the wastewater model and the airport data, arguing the wastewater model was inaccurate and the airport data was not in its possession.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of both models, finding them relevant and necessary since the City intended to rely on them to some extent.

The Tribunal also ordered the City to disclose the airport data if and when it becomes available to the City, failing which neither party may rely on it at the merit hearing.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order to invalidate and repeal a municipal by-law designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued the municipality failed to follow statutory procedures when issuing the Notice of Intention to Designate.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 29(15) of the Ontario Heritage Act and sections 8 and 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to repeal a by-law on a motion without first holding a hearing on the merits of the appeal.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Niagara Region and the City of Niagara Falls to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a mineral aggregate extraction operation.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties requested time to finalize the issues list and engage in Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 10-day merit hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Development Charges By-laws by the Township of Georgian Bay and the District of Muskoka, the parties requested a phased hearing approach to address common issues.

The Tribunal granted the request on consent, vacated the previously scheduled merit hearing, and directed the parties to provide dates for a coordinated first phase hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 58-storey mixed-use tower.

The parties agreed on all procedural matters, including a revised draft Issues List and Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-week hearing on the merits for November and December 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Walker Aggregates Inc. against the Niagara Region and the City of Niagara Falls for failing to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a mineral aggregate extraction operation.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted Party status to two neighbouring landowners with residential development proposals, and granted Participant status to four local residents.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to address a forthcoming Aggregate Resources Act license application and the Procedural Order.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellants against the District of Muskoka's Development Charges By-law No. 2024-34.

Noting a related appeal against the Township of Georgian Bay, the Tribunal scheduled a further CMC to discuss a phased hearing approach to address overlapping issues efficiently.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town of Halton Hills' decision to designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The parties indicated they were not ready for settlement discussions or mediation pending the resolution of an open motion.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day motion hearing for July 10, 2025, and established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials.

A Case Management Conference was held following a settlement of appeals regarding a proposed subdivision.

The parties disputed whether shared or individual driveway culverts should be used, leading the City to refuse to clear draft plan conditions.

The Tribunal tentatively scheduled a written motion to resolve the issue and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order.

When the parties failed to confirm their intention to proceed by the deadline, citing ongoing settlement discussions, the Tribunal released the reserved motion date.

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.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law regulating cannabis cultivation, the Tribunal was advised that a full settlement had been reached.

One party withdrew their status on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider the settlement agreement and directed the parties to file supporting materials, including expert evidence.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit six industrial warehouse buildings.

The parties reached a settlement on Revised Amendments that expand the settlement boundary, rezone the lands to Prestige Industrial with holding provisions, and protect environmental and proposed Highway 413 lands.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the Revised Amendments consistent with provincial policy and good planning, and allowed the appeals in part to approve the modifications.

The applicant sought costs of $445,375.56 against the City following the settlement of a planning appeal.

The applicant argued the City unreasonably delayed delivering the appeal package contrary to the Planning Act and engaged in other unreasonable conduct during settlement negotiations.

The Tribunal found the City's 75-day delay in delivering the appeal package was clearly unreasonable and awarded $2,500 in costs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the balance of the costs claim, finding the City's conduct during negotiations did not meet the high threshold for costs under Rule 23.9 and the applicant failed to particularize the costs associated with the alleged misconduct.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the appellant against the township and county concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law regulating cannabis cultivation facilities.

The parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement concept is in place but requires municipal council endorsement.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide status updates and, if no settlement is reached, to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

The applications seek to permit the development of six industrial warehouse buildings.

The procedural order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, key dates, parties, participants, and the consolidated issues list.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant concerning the amount of cash-in-lieu of parkland required by the respondent for a residential subdivision.

The parties requested a Tribunal-led mediation assessment.

The Tribunal approved the final draft Procedural Order to govern the upcoming three-day video hearing scheduled for November 2024.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the renovation and partial reconstruction of the Regent Theatre with a three-storey rear addition.

The Tribunal found that the property maintained a legal non-conforming use as a live theatre.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.