Emma Ruth Bradley Blanchard

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) on rural lands, alleging the City of Ottawa acted in bad faith and failed to follow required procedures.

The Divisional Court granted the applicant public interest standing and exercised its discretion to hear the application despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

On the merits, the court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of bad faith or procedural unfairness in the City's sequencing of approvals, suspension of procedural rules, or reliance on the submitted technical studies.

The appellant brought a motion to modify procedural dates and revise the Issues List for an upcoming hearing regarding a Town-wide Development Permit By-law.

The appellant and the Town had resolved certain issues and requested their removal, along with the addition of one related sub-issue.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it had the authority to make procedural directions to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious hearing, and that the amendments would not prejudice any parties.

The appellants appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a commercial tent and trailer park.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were engaged in private discussions and requested a second CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to submit a final Procedural Order.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town-initiated Franktown Road Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (OPA 11).

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local property owner on consent.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed the County's refusal of an application to sever an additional dwelling unit from their farm property.

The subject lands were designated as prime agricultural in the County Official Plan.

The appellants argued the severed portion had poor soil quality and was unusable for agriculture.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed consent was not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and did not conform with the County Official Plan, which restricts lot creation in prime agricultural areas to protect agricultural resources.

The Tribunal noted that concerns regarding soil quality and land designation should be addressed through an official plan amendment rather than a consent application.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for a stay and the granting of the respondents' motion to strike, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded as this was public interest litigation.

The court held that the public interest nature of the case did not exempt the applicant from costs rules, especially given the voluminous record and the significant economic interests at stake.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 for the proponent and $12,500 for the City, payable by the applicant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the approval authority's failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Town of Carleton Place on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties time to frame the issues and finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The applicant sought a stay of a zoning bylaw amendment that permitted a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Ottawa, pending its application for judicial review.

The respondents opposed the stay and moved to strike portions of the application and the applicant's affidavit evidence.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents.

The court granted the motion to strike in part, striking the challenge to the Municipal Support Resolution as statute-barred, striking portions of the application that impermissibly sought reasonableness review of the bylaw, and striking several affidavits and portions of affidavits that contained impermissible opinion evidence from unqualified laypersons.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The parties reached a settlement to permit the development of a residential subdivision comprising 404 residential lots and blocks.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development had regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would facilitate the construction of 660 residential units.

A Case Management Conference was held where the applicant for the by-law amendment was granted party status.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence in May 2026.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Pegasus Development Corporation against the Town of Carleton Place's new Town-wide Development Permit By-law.

The Tribunal granted party status to Inverness Homes Inc., approved the Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on August 10, 2026.

The parties settled an expropriation compensation claim for $50,000 plus reasonable costs to be agreed upon or assessed.

The claimant subsequently brought a motion for costs of $401,387.18.

The City opposed the quantum and sought its own costs, arguing the claimant acted unreasonably by pursuing a speculative damages claim and delaying settlement.

The Tribunal held that the settlement agreement did not permit the City to claim its own costs and that it could not evaluate the merits of the unlitigated compensation claim on a costs motion.

The Tribunal found the claimant's conduct was not unreasonable and awarded the claimant its costs, subject to specific reductions for a technology fee, excessive consultant hours, and duplicative legal time.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tay Valley's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the demolition of a cottage and construction of a year-round dwelling.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

A two-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for November 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Exhibition Lands Regional Inc. and Greater Ottawa Home Builders' Association against the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment 34.

During the conference, the Tribunal granted party status to VIA Rail Canada Inc. and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for January 15, 2026.

The parties were directed to file a draft Procedural Order prior to the next conference.

The Appellant appealed the County of Renfrew's failure to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for 26 waterfront residential lots.

The primary issue was the adequacy and required upgrade standards for a private access road (Pasco Road) located on an unopened road allowance shared by two adjacent townships.

The Tribunal found that because the two townships could not agree on the standard to which the access road should be upgraded, the application failed to satisfy section 51(24)(e) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the proposed subdivision was premature and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The applications propose a residential subdivision of approximately 746 dwelling units.

The parties requested a Tribunal-led mediation evaluation and a second CMC to allow time for potential mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for October 24, 2025, and directed the parties to provide an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the Town of Carleton Place's Official Plan Amendment No. 8 (OPA 8), arguing that its density requirements and limitations on intensification in the Mississippi District Residential Sector (MRS) were inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS).

The Town presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence that OPA 8 provides an appropriate range of housing options and directs significant growth to strategic areas while preserving the character of established neighbourhoods.

The Tribunal accepted the Town's evidence, finding that the MRS policies have regard to provincial interests, are consistent with the PPS, and represent good land use planning.

The appeal was dismissed and OPA 8 was approved.

The Tribunal held a seventh Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Ottawa's approval of revised conditions for a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties advised that settlement negotiations had concluded but the execution of documents remained outstanding due to delays by the appellant.

The Tribunal scheduled a final Case Management Conference and directed the parties to attend with agreed-upon options for scheduling a hearing if the settlement documents are not executed by that time.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a sixth Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the municipality's approval of revised conditions for a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties reported that they were close to finalizing a settlement but required more time.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference and directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order if the settlement did not proceed.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Class III Development Permit Application to construct six street-facing townhouses.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement that addressed the Town Committee's compatibility concerns by increasing the exterior side yard setback and requiring tree planting.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conformed to the applicable official plans and by-laws, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to issue the permit subject to the agreed conditions.