Eileen P. Costello

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 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 Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 74-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 9-day merit hearing to commence in April 2024.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to quash a municipal bylaw designating their property as a heritage building.

The appellants argued the bylaw was void ab initio due to a defect in the notice of intention to designate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the application, brought under s. 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001, was barred by the one-year limitation period in s. 273(5), as the appellants had actual notice of the designation years before commencing the proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that approved Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments permitting a mixed residential and commercial development on adjacent lands.

The moving party argued the Board erred in law by failing to apply the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, exceeded its jurisdiction by extending the re-designation to intervening properties, and breached natural justice by refusing to admit late noise evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on any point of law, and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their land under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The appellants' land, located in a Natural Core Area and accessible only by private road, did not permit the construction of a single dwelling under the applicable zoning by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Board that the definition of a bed and breakfast establishment limits such use to a single dwelling that is the principal residence, which could not be built on the appellants' property.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which held that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their lands under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Board had concluded that a bed and breakfast could only be established in an existing dwelling.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's restrictive interpretation of the Conservation Plan was open to serious debate and that the point of law warranted appellate attention given the legislation's broad impact.