Denise Baker

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment #59.

The Tribunal granted party status to Comgord Limited on consent.

The parties requested more time to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the merit hearing until the procedural documents are approved and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for June 6, 2024.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as a heritage designation and demolition permit refusal, to permit a 33-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement that included relocating and integrating the existing heritage building into the new development.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conforms to provincial, regional, and municipal policies for intensification within an Urban Growth Centre.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the planning instruments approved in principle and the final order withheld pending heritage approvals.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 20-storey and 18-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represented over-intensification and was not compatible with the existing low-to-mid-rise neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal also noted the lack of a required Visual Impact Assessment to evaluate impacts on adjacent cultural heritage resources, including Battlefield Park.

The appeal was dismissed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment was not approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant for a non-decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a residential development.

The respondent had not yet brought a contemplated motion to dismiss.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List within 30 days and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing to commence in April 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of Durham's Development Charges By-law No. 42-2023.

The Region requested time to answer questions from the appellants to assist in identifying issues and exploring settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and directed the parties to exchange draft issues lists and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town of Blue Mountains' refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit a bed and breakfast.

The Tribunal granted party status to one area resident and participant status to two others on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a nine-storey mid-rise building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that resolved all issues, including a revised parking supply.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with local plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

This was the first Case Management Conference for appeals filed by the appellants concerning an Education Development Charges By-law passed by the respondent school board.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to address a potential jurisdictional question regarding the Tribunal's authority to hear certain aspects of the appeals and set procedural dates for the filing of motion materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Greater Sudbury's decision to amend a zoning by-law to permit a six-storey retirement home.

The City did not attend and indicated it would not participate.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing and approved the Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The applicant sought costs against a residents' group following a settlement hearing regarding a zoning by-law amendment appeal.

The applicant argued the residents' group engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to comply with tribunal orders, failing to communicate, and failing to call evidence on their issues, which caused the applicant to incur unnecessary expert and legal fees.

The Tribunal found the residents' group's conduct to be unreasonable and ordered them to pay $1,750 in costs to the applicant.

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.

This decision arises from the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment 59.

The Tribunal granted party status to several non-appellant property owners who demonstrated genuine land use planning concerns.

The parties were directed to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance of the second Case Management Conference, which was scheduled for May 8, 2024.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 986-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was informed that the City was contemplating a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to either determine a path for a merit hearing or hear the contemplated motion to dismiss.

The applicant appealed the Town of Gravenhurst's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments intended to permit a mixed-use development, including commercial, residential, and amenity spaces, along the waterfront.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised proposal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the applicable Official Plans, and represent good land use planning by providing appropriate intensification.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amendments in accordance with the settlement.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Milton's Official Plan Amendment No. 54, which introduces the Trafalgar Secondary Plan.

The appellants and the Town reached a proposed settlement that resolves all issues on the Issues List, and discussions with the Regional Municipality of Halton were ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order with a scoped Issues List and a written update on whether a contested hearing would still be required.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit an infill development of 30 residential units, including stacked and street-fronting townhouses.

The City opposed the applications solely on urban design and compatibility grounds, arguing the stacked townhouses did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the City's compatibility analysis was too narrow and rigidly applied.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed development was sufficiently compatible with the broader neighbourhood, satisfied all statutory tests, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the amendments approved.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan and its Secondary Plans.

The Tribunal received status updates on the various phases of the hearing, including ongoing settlement discussions, the withdrawal of certain appeals, and the scheduling of future hearing dates.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to continue progressing the matters toward potential settlement prior to the merit hearing.

The Tribunal considered a request for partial approval of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (OPA 79), which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

Following mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resulting in modifications to OPA 79.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified OPA 79 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and partially approved the modified OPA 79, while preserving the rights of the remaining appellants for a future merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the City's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 30-unit infill development consisting of stacked and street-fronting townhouses.

The City opposed the applications solely on urban design and compatibility grounds, arguing the stacked townhouses did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, finding the development was sufficiently compatible with the broader neighbourhood context and satisfied all statutory planning tests.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the requested amendments.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the construction of mid-rise, mixed-use buildings and stacked townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the proposal, including minor increases to height and density to accommodate design changes.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments.