Denise Baker

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for appeals against the Town of Erin's Development Charges By-law 24-35.

The parties agreed to timelines for submitting an Issues List and a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing on the merits, and encouraged the parties to consider Tribunal-led mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant concerning the municipality's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application for a 93-unit vacant land condominium.

The Tribunal granted participant status to an abutting landowner, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits for January 2026.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application intended to facilitate residential development by redefining wetland and hazard zones.

The parties reached a settlement proposal that significantly reduced the development footprint and provided appropriate setbacks to natural heritage features.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Niagara Escarpment Plan, County of Grey Official Plan, and the Town's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended Zoning By-law.

The City of Brantford brought a motion to scope appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL) and to bring the unappealed portions of the CZBL into full force and effect on a city-wide basis.

The appellant parties consented to scoping their appeals to their specific sites or areas.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found that granting the motion represented good planning as it would streamline the development process.

The Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, bringing the CZBL into force save and except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Vaughan brought a motion for directions to phase the hearing of an appeal regarding a proposed 21-storey residential development.

The moving parties sought a Phase 2A hearing to determine natural heritage and hazard issues (the permissible building envelope) before a Phase 2B hearing on remaining planning issues.

The appellant argued the motion was barred by issue estoppel due to a prior review disposition.

The Tribunal found issue estoppel did not apply, as the prior disposition did not decide the phasing request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that determining the permissible building envelope is a threshold issue and that phasing the hearing would provide the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the appeals.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Vaughan brought a motion requesting a phased hearing for appeals concerning a proposed 21-storey residential development on lands with environmental designations.

The moving parties sought a Phase 2A hearing to determine the permissible building envelope based on natural heritage and hazard issues, followed by a Phase 2B hearing for remaining planning issues.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing it was barred by issue estoppel due to a prior review disposition.

The Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not apply, as the prior disposition did not decide the phasing request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, concluding that the environmental issues are threshold matters and that a phased approach would provide the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the appeals.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed mixed-use development, a neighbouring industrial company requested party status.

The applicant objected, arguing that a stand-alone motion was required and that the company's involvement would duplicate issues raised by other industrial parties.

The Tribunal found that a stand-alone motion was unnecessary and granted the company party status, noting its unique interests as a neighbouring industry and the need for its presence to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 4, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to correct the spelling of counsel Diana Doracin's name in the appearances list.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.

A second case management conference was held regarding appeals against the modified approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit three residential apartment towers.

No requests for party or participant status were received.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the final procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day merits hearing, noting that the parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the upcoming five-day hearing regarding appeals of a proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The appeals relate to the creation of 12 lots with commercial lodges and a future development block.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to redefine wetland and hazard zones and establish development envelopes.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

Shoal Bayly brought a motion to add an issue to the Issues List regarding the funding of a specific road and bridge project through the Region's development charges.

The Region and other appellants had already reached a settlement on the existing issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed issue was distinct, should have been raised earlier, and was more appropriately addressed in separate ongoing proceedings regarding Shoal Bayly's draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal then approved the uncontested settlement, finding the proposed changes to the Development Charge By-law to be fair, reasonable, and in compliance with the Development Charges Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development consisting of a six-storey podium with two residential towers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's modified approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

Due to an administrative error by the City, notice of the initial Case Management Conference was not provided, causing a delay.

On consent, the appellant requested a Status Hearing to schedule the merit hearing to avoid further prejudice.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing for June 2025 and set dates for the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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 Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Condominium.

A motion for party status and an adjournment was brought by non-appellants.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of the motion because a finalized Issues List had not yet been submitted, which is required to determine if the non-appellants can shelter under existing issues as mandated by the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The parties were directed to submit a revised Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the City of Burlington's Development Charges By-law No. 41-2024.

The appellant expressed interest in a mediation assessment and requested time to determine if mediation will proceed.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 21, 2024, to allow the parties to explore mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant railway company against the municipality's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal deferred a request for party status by a neighbouring landowner, directing them to file a written motion.

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

Multiple appeals were filed regarding the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and its Secondary Plans.

The parties reached a settlement resolving the remaining phases of the appeals, including site-specific zoning by-law amendments and modifications to the Bobcaygeon and Omemee Secondary Plans.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modifications and amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlement and modified the planning instruments accordingly.