Allan Ramsay

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit the development of two multi-storey residential apartment buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant submitted a revised proposal reducing the height of the north building from 14 to 10 storeys and making other design changes.

The Tribunal found that the revised proposal, subject to a 2.5-metre stepback on the north building, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until the final form of the zoning by-law is submitted and the Region of Peel approves an updated functional servicing report.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the redevelopment of portions of an existing golf course into residential lots and a mid-rise or townhouse block.

The City and local residents' associations opposed the development, arguing it would result in the loss of open space, remove mature trees, and undermine the character of the established community.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence that the development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, appropriately manages stormwater and natural hazards, and provides needed housing through intensification.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 35-storey residential building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it was an overdevelopment with insufficient setbacks and separation distances that would negatively impact future land assembly.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding that land assembly on adjacent properties was unlikely due to constraints such as the City's rental replacement policy.

The Tribunal concluded the proposal was consistent with the PPS, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, contingent on the satisfaction of final conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for a consent to sever and minor variances to facilitate the creation of two residential lots from one existing lot.

The central issue was whether the proposed reduced lot width and area were compatible with the character of the mature neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert planning evidence, finding that the appropriate neighbourhood study area was broader than just the immediate street and included a mix of lot sizes.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development would coexist harmoniously without unacceptable adverse impacts, satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and met the four-part test for minor variances under s. 45(1).

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was given, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey retirement home with ground floor commercial uses.

The appellant reached a settlement with the City, the Region, and the Conservation Authority, resulting in a modified proposal.

A neighbouring party opposed the development, arguing it constituted overdevelopment and did not conform with the City's Official Plans.

The Tribunal found that the modified proposal was compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, provided appropriate special needs housing, and conformed with both the 1997 and 2020 Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the 2020 Official Plan coming into force for the subject property.

The appellants appealed the City of Richmond Hill's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a nine-storey, 242-unit retirement residence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellants' planner and the original City planning staff report, finding that the proposed height and density increases were appropriate for the site, which is located on an intensification corridor.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the amendments were approved in principle.

This appeal concerned a property zoned agricultural, where the Estate Trustees sought a declaration for legal non-conforming use for commercial purposes, including outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment.

The application judge dismissed the declaration, finding the uses were not lawful under the relevant zoning by-law.

The appellants also sought leave to appeal the application judge's refusal to award them costs for a successful contempt motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the declaration, affirming that the commercial activities were not lawful non-conforming uses.

It also granted leave to appeal the costs issue but dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's discretionary decision on costs.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application to sever a property in a prime agricultural area to create a separate lot for an existing kennel, leaving the existing dwelling on the retained lot.

The Tribunal found that the proposed lot creation was not for agricultural uses but solely to facilitate the transfer of the kennel independent of the residential dwelling.

The Tribunal held that the application would fragment prime agricultural lands, was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and did not conform to the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Parkway Belt West Plan, or the applicable official plans.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment permitting a mixed-use development with two residential towers (37 and 42 storeys) and a daycare facility.

The appellants argued the development would cause traffic issues, the daycare was inappropriately located, and the built form would unduly limit the redevelopment potential of their adjacent properties.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding the proposed vehicular access, parking, and loading were adequate, and the appellants failed to demonstrate how the development would limit their as-of-right uses.

The Tribunal concluded the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, dismissing the appeal.

The City of Hamilton appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to front, side, and rear yard setbacks, and an increase in maximum lot coverage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal in part, finding that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed with the Growth Plan.

The variances were authorized subject to a condition that the development be generally in keeping with the submitted site plan.

The City of London brought a motion to dismiss two appeals of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a mixed-use development with 490 residential units.

The City argued the appeals were statute-barred under s. 34(19.5) of the Planning Act because the subject lands were located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA).

The Tribunal found that Westdell's appeal, which challenged only the distribution of affordable housing units among the proposed buildings, did not attack the permitted use, height, or density, and could therefore proceed.

The Tribunal also found that Dementia Care's appeal, which raised concerns about shadowing, traffic, and parking, was not exclusively related to height and density.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's motion in part, allowing both appeals to proceed to a hearing with specific limitations on the issues that could be raised.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a medical office as a home occupation and to allow one non-resident employee.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal authorized the variance for the medical office, finding it met the four tests under the Planning Act as it would operate within the policies of a home occupation without altering the physical character of the neighbourhood.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the variance for the non-resident employee, concluding that it did not meet the intent of the zoning by-law and would inappropriately commercialize the residential area.

The applicant appealed the Town of Innisfil Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variance applications to permit a third accessory dwelling unit and to allow an existing unit with a reduced gross floor area.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances were consistent with provincial policies, maintained the general intent of the official plans and zoning by-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to a tree preservation condition.

The Attorney General for Ontario brought a motion to strike out parts of an affidavit filed by the applicants in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the vires of O. Reg. 382/19.

The moving party argued the affidavit contained inadmissible legal argument, opinion, and irrelevant evidence that did not fall within the narrow exceptions for supplementing the record on judicial review.

The court adopted a hybrid approach, striking out paragraphs containing clear legal argument and opinion, while adjourning the balance of the motion to the panel hearing the application on its merits.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss two appeals against the approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 662-unit subdivision on a former golf course.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by Hatem Abou El-Nile, finding that his concerns regarding mental health impacts from the loss of green space did not constitute recognized land use planning grounds.

However, the Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss the appeal by Friends to Keep Vaughan Green, finding that their appeal raised genuine, legitimate, and authentic land use planning issues worthy of adjudication, supported by expert evidence.

The appellant appealed the City of Welland's adoption of a city-wide zoning by-law regulating cannabis cultivation, production, and processing.

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal approve the amended by-law.

The Tribunal expressed concerns regarding the scant level of analysis in the supporting planning affidavit, particularly concerning prime agricultural areas and the Provincial Policy Statement.

Before the hearing could continue with further evidence, the appellant withdrew the appeal, and the Tribunal closed the file.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their consent and minor variance applications by the Town of Ingersoll Committee of Adjustment.

The applications sought to create a flag-shaped residential infill lot in the backyard of an existing property, requiring relief from minimum lot frontage requirements.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consents were granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The appellants appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's passage of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-046, which sought to regulate cannabis production and processing facilities by restricting them to industrial zones and imposing a 150-metre setback from sensitive land uses.

The appellants argued that the by-law effectively prohibited the outdoor cultivation of cannabis and industrial hemp in prime agricultural areas, contrary to provincial policies.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, as it failed to protect prime agricultural areas for long-term agricultural use and restricted normal farm practices.

The Tribunal also found that the by-law did not conform to the Growth Plan or the applicable Official Plans.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the municipality to repeal the by-law.

The appellant appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment approved by the municipality that permitted the development of a 78-unit, three-storey apartment building.

The appellant argued the development was incompatible with surrounding low-density residential uses and would cause privacy and overlook issues.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence of the municipality that the development represented appropriate intensification and that privacy concerns could be mitigated through the site plan control process.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement agreed-upon revisions to the by-law regarding setbacks, balconies, and landscaping, but was otherwise dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a neighbouring property to permit reduced setbacks for privacy screens, a cabana, and pool equipment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

It authorized the variances for the privacy screens, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, it refused the variances for the cabana and pool equipment, accepting expert evidence that the cabana's size and location were obtrusive and that the pool equipment generated noise exceeding municipal and provincial criteria, thereby failing the minor variance tests.