Emma Ruth Bradley Blanchard

The Township brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of its refusal to enact a zoning by-law amendment that would have permitted a gun range and shooting club.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's notice of appeal was deficient because it failed to provide the required reasons and explanations for how the decision was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Furthermore, relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence provided by the Township, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 3, the Tribunal heard a motion to substitute Denise Ménard as a party in place of 3930149 Canada Inc., whose conditional agreement of purchase and sale with Ménard had been cancelled.

With no objections, the Tribunal granted the motion.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to 21 individuals representing the public's interest in the overall effect of the OPA.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2024.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal deferred consideration of 21 Participant Status Requests to the next CMC because not all requests had been properly served on the parties.

A further CMC was scheduled for February 2024 to update the Tribunal on settlement discussions and consider the participant requests.

The Respondent, Cornwall Fire Services, brought a motion for costs against the corporate Appellant, 2416300 Ontario Inc., alleging unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct during the appeal process.

The Respondent sought $5,000 in costs, citing delays, failure to call expert witnesses, and disregard for procedural directions.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the Respondent failed to establish a solid evidentiary basis for the costs claim.

The Commission concluded that the adjournments and delays were not attributable to conduct that would justify a costs award, and dismissed the motion.

The City of Cornwall sought to repeal a by-law designating a property on which Locomotive No. 17, a heritage artefact, was situated.

Various community members objected to the repeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that while the locomotive is an important heritage artefact, the land itself has no cultural heritage value or interest, and the placement of the artefact on the land did not create such value.

The Tribunal recommended that the designating by-law be repealed.

This decision addresses the impact of a Court of Appeal ruling that declared certain contingent property interests in a 1981 development agreement void for perpetuities.

The Superior Court was remitted to determine which other provisions of the 1981 Agreement and related contracts were affected and rendered inoperative.

The court found that the voided sections fundamentally altered the original bargain, which included a path for the evolution and potential redevelopment of the golf course lands, not a perpetual obligation to operate a golf course.

Consequently, several provisions related to the golf course's perpetual operation, sale, right of first refusal, and redevelopment path were declared inoperative.

The 40% open space principle was largely maintained but its application to golf course redevelopment was clarified.

The appellant building owner appealed an inspection order requiring the installation of an operational fire alarm system and that all work be performed by qualified persons.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the existing fire alarm system was not functioning as intended, could not be repaired due to discontinued parts and lost programming, and had its ULC listing voided by unauthorized access from a non-certified technician.

The Commission amended the order to clarify the specific Fire Code contraventions and extended the compliance date to six months, effectively requiring the replacement of the fire alarm system.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3, which adds the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

SDLP 1887 Orleans Limited requested and was granted party status without opposition.

The parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and a willingness to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation if necessary.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 26, 2023.

The appellant appealed a Fire Marshal's Review Decision that amended an Inspection Order regarding fire code contraventions at a former hospital building.

The order required the appellant to either repair and maintain the emergency power generator or formally apply to the Chief Fire Official to decommission it.

The appellant argued that the fire department had previously permitted the installation of emergency lighting in lieu of repairing the generator and that the generator was not a life safety system requiring formal decommissioning.

The Fire Safety Commission confirmed the Review Decision, finding that the emergency lighting was only an interim measure and that the generator, as part of the building's fire protection equipment, must be maintained or formally decommissioned.

The Commission extended the compliance date to six months from the release of the decision or from when the appellant is granted access to the building.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 196-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development had regard to matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and constituted good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, amended the Zoning By-law, and approved the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to determine whether 3930149 Canada Inc. had standing to request a Hearing of Necessity regarding a proposed expropriation, and to determine the required pre-hearing disclosure.

The Requestor claimed standing as an 'owner' based on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the registered owner, but refused to provide the agreement to the City.

The Tribunal ordered the Requestor to provide a redacted copy of the agreement to the City to establish its standing before a hearing date could be set or further disclosure ordered.

The applicant appealed the failure of the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Town of Huntsville to make decisions on a proposed draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The proposal sought to permit a residential development of 782 units.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a proposed 196-unit subdivision.

The appeals were brought under sections 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision applications.

The Tribunal ordered that the revised procedural order provided by the parties is in force and effect to guide the hearing of the merits.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications for a 196-unit subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on April 24, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing in writing regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Zoning By-law 2019-353 concerning high-rise building provisions.

The City and the appellant reached a settlement to correct a technical error in the By-law and address site-specific constraints regarding tower separation distances.

Based on the unchallenged expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement fair, reasonable, and consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, modified the Zoning By-law, and adjourned another site-specific appeal sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the District Municipality of Muskoka and the Town of Huntsville for failing to make decisions on a proposed plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal directed the municipalities to provide an outline of their concerns, set a timeline for the exchange of witness statements, and confirmed the hearing would commence on August 8, 2022.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's appeals regarding a proposed residential subdivision, arguing the appeals lacked apparent land use planning grounds and were premature due to insufficient technical information.

The respondent had appealed the moving parties' failure to make a decision on its draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent's notices of appeal and supporting expert affidavits disclosed genuine, legitimate, and authentic land use planning grounds worthy of adjudication.

The Tribunal also held that prematurity under section 51(24) of the Planning Act is a matter to be determined at a full hearing on the merits, not on a motion to dismiss.

The appellant appealed the City's approval of an Official Plan Amendment that permitted redevelopment and increased heights, arguing it failed to provide sufficient affordable housing and violated the Charter and Human Rights Code.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 17(45) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the appeal failed to disclose any legitimate land use planning grounds, as the City's Official Plan only encouraged a target for affordable housing and the City had not enacted inclusionary zoning.

The appellant also failed to provide evidence to support its Charter and Human Rights Code claims.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal against the municipality's approval of an Official Plan Amendment, the Tribunal granted party status to the applicant on consent.

The Tribunal also scheduled a video hearing for the applicant's motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

At a Case Management Conference, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry brought a motion under s. 17(39)(b) of the Planning Act to bring into force and effect undisputed land use designations in its Comprehensive Official Plan across five townships.

The motion followed extensive discussions resolving appeals regarding the designation of lands as Agricultural Resource Lands versus Rural District.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised mapping was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the undisputed schedules into force.

The Tribunal also granted a motion for directions clarifying that an appellant's appeal sought an aggregate reserve designation rather than an agricultural one.