David Sunday

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of twelve minor variances intended to permit a four-storey townhouse complex.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body acknowledged the withdrawal, vacated the hearing, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application intended to facilitate the future severance of a surplus farm dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed severance would create a residential lot not associated with agricultural use in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the application failed to meet Minimum Distance Separation requirements, was inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, and did not conform to the County and Town Official Plans.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Sarnia's Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The Tribunal directed the parties to continue mediation efforts and submit a draft final Procedural Order and Issues List by January 24, 2025.

A 12-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the County of Lambton's decision to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 3, adopted by the City of Sarnia.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents on consent.

The parties agreed to participate in a scoping exercise to identify the specific sections and schedules of the OPA under appeal.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 28, 2024, to provide an update on the scoping exercise and to schedule a hearing date.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a Country Inn development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the new owners of the subject lands on consent.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled for January 2024, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by HJ Donegan Holdings Inc. for a proposed residential subdivision in North Perth.

The appeal was filed due to the municipality's failure to render a decision on zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision applications within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner, Erie Meats, on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 14-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application for a 32-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two residents' associations, approved a phased hearing process starting with the Zoning By-law Amendment, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a seven-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order following a case management conference regarding appeals of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming's Official Plan Amendments 51 and 54.

The appeals concern a request to permit a surplus farm dwelling severance and the Town's five-year review of its Official Plan.

The Order sets out the hearing schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the video hearing scheduled to commence on December 11, 2023.

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that resolved concerns regarding land use compatibility with a nearby poultry processing facility and the preservation of a heritage farmhouse.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed development, with an agreed 150-metre separation distance and warning clauses, represents good planning, is in the public interest, and satisfies all legislative requirements.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal addressed two motions regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendments 51 and 54.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together.

The Tribunal also ordered the appellant to provide substantive responses to the Town's request for particulars on a without prejudice basis.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for December 2023.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in a previous decision.

The amendment corrected the hearing start date, confirming that the hearing would commence on February 6, 2023, and approved the revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals concerning the Region of Waterloo's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 128.

The order sets out the organization of the video hearing scheduled for November 6, 2023, the requirements before the hearing including the exchange of witness statements and expert reports, and the issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard motions regarding appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

Sheltering parties Castandgrey and Country sought to refuse the appellants' partial withdrawal of appeals, arguing the entire Elfrida Area should remain under consideration for urban expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the motions in part, ruling that while it would not refuse the scoping of issues, the full Elfrida Area potential urban boundary remains under appeal and the Ministry's modifications for non-appellant lands are not in force.

A separate motion by LIV Developments Ltd. for party status was denied as it did not advance the public interest and would result in a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Region of Waterloo brought a motion seeking approval of a proposed final revision of the Issues List in the Procedural Order governing the merits hearing of an appeal concerning Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2.

The Region argued that a prior Tribunal decision had made an issue estoppel finding that restricted the appellants from raising certain provincial policy and plan issues.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the prior estoppel decision was binding and had been upheld by the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order containing an Issues List in accordance with the prior estoppel decision.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by Joseph and Laura Puopolo against the Region of Waterloo's adoption of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (ROPA 2).

The settlement proposed utilizing the appellants' lands as a stormwater retention pond and outlet facility, freeing up other lands within ROPA 2 for residential development without expanding the urban area.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the Regional Official Plan, allowed the appeal in part, and amended ROPA 2 accordingly.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton advised that it is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review that may result in an urban boundary expansion, potentially resolving many appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 4, 2021, to allow time for the City to provide direction on the boundary expansion and for the parties to prepare an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge to make decisions on a proposed draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 48-hectare site.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed residential development and environmental protection areas satisfy all statutory requirements, including conformity with the Growth Plan and consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft Plan of Subdivision and the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed the adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Perth and the Municipality of North Perth.

The parties reached a compromise settlement to revise the amendments to continue permitting a mixed-use development.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and in conformity with the County Official Plan.

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

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever a property and for associated minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The City did not appear to oppose the appeal.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert evidence in architecture, urban design, and land use planning that the proposed development was a better fit for the neighbourhood than the larger as-of-right semi-detached building permitted by the zoning.

The Tribunal found that the consent applications had due regard for provincial interests and met the statutory criteria, and that the variances satisfied the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.