Doug Pateman

The applicant appealed the Town'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 proposing a four-storey mixed-use building on a consolidated parcel following a land swap.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Regional and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part to implement the settlement and dismissed the subdivision appeal on consent.

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Clarington's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 136 regarding the Bowmanville East Urban Centre Secondary Plan.

One appellant reached a settlement with the municipality to modify specific policies and schedules, including removing their lands from the secondary plan maps and adjusting mixed-use building permissions.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the regional official plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement for that appellant and scheduled a merit hearing for the remaining appeals.

This decision arises from the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 55-storey residential tower.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian National Railway Company and Curated North Inc. on consent.

Participant status was granted to two adjacent landowners/residents, but denied to a third individual who failed to provide sufficient information or attend the conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day merit hearing and a one-day motion hearing, and directed the filing of a finalized Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the municipality's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment for a Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to several individuals, deferred a status request from a conservation authority, and scheduled a third Case Management Conference to finalize the Issues List and consider potential settlements.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and approved a procedural order.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard and approved a settlement between BSC Landco Inc. and the City regarding the property at 555 Greenwich Street.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to rezone a portion of the property from 'Core Natural' to a 'Holding - General Employment' zone, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications propose a 14-unit freehold townhouse development.

The parties agreed to scope the issues, reducing the required Merit Hearing from seven to five days.

The Tribunal scheduled the Merit Hearing and directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted requests from several parties to withdraw their appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a request by Losani Homes to consolidate its site-specific appeals of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law with its appeals of privately-initiated applications for the same properties, finding it would be an effective and efficient use of resources.

Further Case Management Conference dates were scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Plan of Subdivision to permit a 37-unit residential farm co-operative.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting a 10-day video hearing to commence on July 7, 2025, and established the procedural dates for the exchange of witness statements, expert meetings, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The subject property was designated Mixed-Use Two (MU2), which limits height to 20 storeys and density to 3.0 FSI.

The applicant argued that a secondary plan policy allowed for greater height and density with justification, without needing an official plan amendment.

The Tribunal found that the correct density calculation was 9.53 FSI based on net site area.

The Tribunal held that while the exception policy was permissive, it could not be used to 'leapfrog' the maximum height and density of the next higher designation, as doing so would undermine the foundational hierarchy of designations in the Secondary Plan.

The appeal was dismissed as the proposal did not conform to the official plan.

The applicants appealed the refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to construct a new detached dwelling.

Following a case management conference, the Tribunal issued a procedural order.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal amended the procedural timelines leading up to the hearing scheduled for August 2025.

The applicants appealed the City of Niagara Falls' refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to a five-day video hearing scheduled to commence on August 11, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by Litwillow Holdings Ltd. regarding the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a high-rise mixed-use building with 330 units.

The order sets the hearing dates, procedural steps, and issues list for the upcoming video hearing.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct typographical errors in a decision issued on October 16, 2024.

The amendments included replacing an attachment, correcting the spelling of 'Brampton', and correcting the word 'sized' to 'seized'.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing for an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment refusal by the City of Niagara Falls.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025, for five days.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 330-unit high-rise mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and participant status to three local residents.

The Tribunal also scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 16 appeals against the newly adopted 2023 City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to five requesting entities, including conservation authorities and railway companies, finding they had a direct interest.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals with a related Major Transit Station Area case to a subsequent joint CMC, and established a schedule for the appellants to provide modification letters to the City.

The appellant filed appeals regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications for a 71-storey residential mixed-use building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were engaged in productive mediation.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a status update and a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List by March 28, 2025, without scheduling further hearing dates at this time.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-rise mixed-use development.

Following case management conferences, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties.

The order sets out the issues list, procedural dates, and schedules a 20-day hearing to commence in September 2025.

The Applicant brought a motion to dismiss the Appellant's appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment without a hearing.

The Appellant argued that the Town failed to hold a public hearing on a materially different revised application and raised traffic concerns regarding the use of a local road.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to review the Town's decision on further public notice under s. 34(17) of the Planning Act.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the appeal raised no genuine, legitimate, or authentic planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit two purpose-built rental apartment buildings.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council and supported by adjacent landowners.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of the instruments and necessary easements.