Edward Veldbloom

The claimants commenced a proceeding under section 26 of the Expropriations Act for compensation arising from the expropriation of parts of their lands by the town.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted that the claimants' pleadings included requests for relief outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, such as appealing the rezoning of the property.

The Tribunal explained the nature of expropriation proceedings, advised the self-represented claimants to consider seeking legal assistance, and directed the parties to collaborate on a draft Procedural Order.

A five-day hearing was scheduled for June 2026.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a minor variance application to relocate a previously approved detached accessory building containing an accessory residential dwelling unit.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement proposal approved by Township Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and environmental evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and had regard for matters of provincial interest.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed 20-lot residential subdivision due to the municipality's failure to make a decision.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner concerned with stormwater management and participant status to another individual.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 88-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Highland Creature Corporation and participant status to three individuals and organizations.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the reconstruction of an existing dwelling and the construction of a new two-storey boathouse on a waterfront property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which included reduced lot coverage and height restrictions, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the settlement.

The appellant appealed the refusal of minor variances by the Township's Committee of Adjustment for additions to an existing legal non-complying dwelling and dock on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeals were allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.