Emma Ruth Bradley Blanchard

The appellant appealed two zoning by-law amendments passed by the City of Ottawa to regulate short-term rentals (STRs).

The appellant argued that 'dedicated' STRs (without a principal residence requirement) should be allowed in mixed-use zones that permit both hotels and dwellings.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that dedicated STRs are commercial uses that negatively affect housing supply and affordability, and are incompatible with residential functions even in mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal also found that the by-laws do not unlawfully restrict legal non-conforming rights and declined to recognize specific properties as legal non-conforming due to insufficient evidence.

A request by the City to extend the temporary use period of the by-law was also denied.

Multiple appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's enactment of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment permitting a nine-storey, 62-unit residential apartment building.

The appellants raised concerns regarding shadow impacts, traffic safety, tree preservation, and conformity with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's and City's experts, finding that the proposed development would not create undue adverse impacts on traffic or forestry.

The Tribunal concluded that the amendment has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were dismissed.

This appeal concerned the application of the rule against perpetuities to land development agreements.

ClubLink Corporation ULC appealed a lower court decision that upheld perpetual obligations to operate a golf course or convey the land to the City of Ottawa.

The Court of Appeal found that the contractual provisions requiring conveyance of the golf course lands to the City, or reconveyance back to the original owner, created contingent interests in land.

As these interests did not vest within the 21-year perpetuity period, they are void and unenforceable.

The court clarified that the expectation of a contingency materializing is not a factor in determining if an interest in land is created.

The appeal was allowed, and the relevant sections of the 1981 Agreement were declared void.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Earls Road Development Inc. from the failure of the District Municipality of Muskoka to make a decision on a plan of subdivision application, and the failure of the Town of Huntsville to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The Tribunal directed the parties to further refine the Issues List and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

A 15-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on August 8, 2022.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry 2018 Comprehensive Official Plan, the Township of South Glengarry brought a motion to bring into force parts of the Official Plan redesignating two properties from 'Agricultural Resource Lands' to 'Rural District'.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the redesignation was appropriate based on soil characteristics and conformed with the intent of the Official Plan.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address the remaining appeals.

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

At the second Case Management Conference, the applicant requested a 15-day hearing.

The Tribunal found the request premature as a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List had not yet been finalized or reviewed by the municipalities' counsel.

The Tribunal directed counsel to review the draft order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural details before setting hearing dates.

The applicant sought minor variances to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new one-and-a-half storey dwelling on an undersized waterfront lot.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, which were subsequently appealed by a neighbour.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that slightly amended the variances and included conditions.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The Tribunal previously authorized a Development Permit subject to conditions.

The applicant requested, on consent, an extension of the deadline to enter into a Development Permit Agreement with the municipality.

The Tribunal granted the request and extended the deadline to August 17, 2022.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's Zoning By-Law No. 2019-353, which introduced new zoning provisions for high-rise buildings.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on July 11, 2022, and issued a procedural order governing the proceedings, including the finalization of the issues list and the order of evidence.

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment 240 and Zoning By-law No. 2020-53, which delineated significant wetland boundaries on their lands.

The parties reached a settlement to modify the designations and zoning to reflect only provincially identified significant wetlands, removing the Environmental Protection Zone from certain lands.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the City's Senior Environmental Planner, the Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The claimant brought a motion to compel compliance with a procedural order and to amend timelines in a land compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act.

At the opening of the motion hearing, the parties advised the tribunal that they had agreed to proceed to private mediation and requested that the motion and procedural order timelines be stayed.

The tribunal ordered that the current procedural order remain in place with suspended timelines, held the motion in abeyance, and directed the parties to schedule a further conference after the mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the City of Ottawa.

Several appellants reached a settlement with the City, which will be determined by a motion in writing.

The remaining appeal by R.W. Tomlinson Limited was scheduled for a three-day video hearing, and a Procedural Order was issued to govern that hearing.

The City of Ottawa appealed an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that allowed an official plan amendment proposed by the respondent, which the City Council had previously refused.

The central issue was whether the OMB erred in law by failing to 'have regard to' the Council's decision under s. 2.1 of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court held that the OMB is not required to apply a highly deferential standard of review to Council decisions, but must carefully scrutinize and consider them.

Finding that the OMB had properly analyzed and addressed each of the Council's reasons for refusal, the majority dismissed the appeal.