Evan Barz

The Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan.

The parties disputed the contents of the Issues List.

The Appellants sought to include policies related to aggregates, rural and resource management, transportation, and water, arguing the Provincial Planning Statement must be read in its entirety.

The District and added parties argued the Issues List should be restricted to issues specifically named in the Notices of Appeal, consistent with a prior Tribunal order.

The Tribunal agreed with the District, finding its Issues List best complied with the prior order and provided a fair and just process.

A 13-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for February 2027, and a Procedural Order was issued.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for four distinct appeals relating to proposed expansions of the Fergus Urban Centre boundary in the Township of Centre Wellington.

The parties agreed to a phased hearing approach, with Phase 1 addressing overarching population forecasts and land needs assessments, and Phase 2 addressing site-specific issues.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together for Phase 1 and granted party status to several requesting entities, including the appellants in each other's appeals, adjacent landowners, and the local school board.

A 14-day hearing was scheduled for Phase 1.

The applicant appealed the Town of Innisfil's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a townhouse development.

Following a Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal including 16 semi-detached units and 60 townhouse units.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the Phase 2 hearing on the merits regarding appeals by Lambs Road School Property Ltd. concerning a proposed residential redevelopment and the demolition of a heritage building in the Municipality of Clarington.

The Phase 2 hearing was scheduled for five days commencing June 22, 2026, and the procedural order set out the key dates for the exchange of witness statements, expert meetings, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and approved a procedural order.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard and approved a settlement between BSC Landco Inc. and the City regarding the property at 555 Greenwich Street.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to rezone a portion of the property from 'Core Natural' to a 'Holding - General Employment' zone, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Town of Ajax sought an order requiring the respondents to demolish and remove above-grade construction carried out without a building permit at 599 Kingston Road West, Ajax.

The respondents acknowledged the unpermitted construction but resisted demolition, arguing they should be allowed to continue obtaining the requisite Record of Site Condition (RSC).

The property had a history of soil contamination from its prior use as an automotive facility.

The respondents had entered into a Conditional Building Permit Agreement allowing only below-grade work pending RSC approval, but proceeded to construct above-grade elements without authorization.

Despite multiple warnings, stop work orders, and a mandatory injunction, construction continued.

The court found the respondents' conduct was a calculated decision by an experienced developer to circumvent regulatory requirements and ordered demolition as the only appropriate remedy to enforce building code compliance and protect public safety.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted requests from several parties to withdraw their appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a request by Losani Homes to consolidate its site-specific appeals of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law with its appeals of privately-initiated applications for the same properties, finding it would be an effective and efficient use of resources.

Further Case Management Conference dates were scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing regarding appeals by 2723773 Ontario Limited.

The appeals relate to the Town of Innisfil's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to facilitate the development of six townhouse blocks.

The hearing is scheduled for two days commencing December 17, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for appeals brought by the applicant due to the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to facilitate the development of six townhouse blocks.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a two-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning a proposed residential redevelopment and the demolition of a heritage building in the Municipality of Clarington.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order and scheduled a two-phase merit hearing to commence in June and December 2025.

The applicants appealed the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make a decision regarding official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision applications for a proposed high-rise development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham on consent.

The Tribunal denied a party status request from a neighboring developer, granting participant status instead, as the primary concern regarding building height would be adequately addressed by the municipalities.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-week merit hearing.

The City of Brantford brought a motion to scope appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL) and to bring the unappealed portions of the CZBL into full force and effect on a city-wide basis.

The appellant parties consented to scoping their appeals to their specific sites or areas.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found that granting the motion represented good planning as it would streamline the development process.

The Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, bringing the CZBL into force save and except for the specific properties under appeal.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed mixed-use development, a neighbouring industrial company requested party status.

The applicant objected, arguing that a stand-alone motion was required and that the company's involvement would duplicate issues raised by other industrial parties.

The Tribunal found that a stand-alone motion was unnecessary and granted the company party status, noting its unique interests as a neighbouring industry and the need for its presence to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by Lambs Road School Property Ltd. concerning the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision, as well as an appeal regarding the demolition of a heritage building.

The order sets out the schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the 15-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 17, 2025.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and site plan control to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a revised 113-unit development.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.

The defendants were charged with undertaking development in a wetland without a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The prosecution brought a motion to preclude the defendants from challenging the TRCA's jurisdiction and the existence of a wetland, which the court dismissed as violating the presumption of innocence.

The defendants brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found a net delay of 21.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial offences.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, which was exacerbated by a lack of judicial resources, the court stayed the charges.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate its appeal of a draft plan of subdivision under the Planning Act with appeals of a development permit under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Tribunal found that the statutory requirements for consolidation under section 21 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act were met.

The Tribunal also determined that in a consolidated hearing, it has the authority to stand in the shoes of the Minister to make any decision that could be made after the hearing.

The undisputed motion for a consolidated hearing was granted.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a 136-unit residential subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

At a scheduled settlement hearing, the parties advised that they had settled in principle but required more time to finalize the settlement documentation.

The Tribunal scheduled a further settlement hearing for June 17, 2024, and directed the parties to submit their materials in advance.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seniors' campus and townhouse units.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to organize the hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.