Brian Casagrande

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3 (OPA 3), which added the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

The appellant argued that the Secondary Plan inappropriately restricted their property to non-residential uses and a four-storey height limit due to a lack of committed funding for a nearby planned transit station.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the City's 'wait and see' approach to zoning based on infrastructure funding contradicted the Planning Act and failed to recognize provincial policy directions for growth and housing.

The Tribunal ordered modifications to OPA 3 to include the subject property in the Station Area, permit 40-storey heights and mixed-use residential development, and remove the requirement for a Demonstration Plan.

The Applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a draft Plan of Subdivision for 186 residential units.

The central issues were whether the proposed Low-Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment train was appropriate instead of a traditional stormwater management pond, and whether the proposed density and mix of dwellings conformed to the Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal found that the LID approach was appropriate, cost-effective, and aligned with provincial and municipal policies encouraging innovative stormwater solutions.

However, the Tribunal found that the proposed townhouses for certain blocks exceeded density caps and required back-to-back or rear lane typologies to conform.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the submission of revised plans and joint conditions of approval.

The City of Ottawa expropriated the claimants' property for the Stage 2 Light Rail Transit project.

The parties disputed the highest and best use and market value of the property.

The claimants argued for a high-density two-tower development valued at $13.2 million, while the City argued for a lower-density development valued at $5.48 million.

The Tribunal found that the claimants' proposal was not legally permissible or financially feasible and failed to screen out the influence of the LRT scheme as required by the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal determined the highest and best use was a single 17-storey tower and set the market value at $8,053,290, less a $269,000 deduction for environmental remediation costs, resulting in a total compensation award of $7,784,290.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting provisional consent to sever a lot, arguing the Committee erred by not including a tree protection condition.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement to include a condition requiring a development agreement for tree preservation mitigation measures and associated security.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application, subject to the agreed-upon condition, had regard to provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and provisional consent was granted subject to the revised condition.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of an Official Plan Amendment without a hearing under s. 17(45) of the Planning Act.

The appellant argued the amendment was res judicata due to a 2014 OMB decision.

The Tribunal found the proposed development had sufficiently changed, defeating the res judicata claim.

The Tribunal concluded the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant's request for costs was denied as the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable or frivolous.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent to sever and minor variances required to create a new lot for a long semi-detached dwelling and establish a parking easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance had regard for the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The Tribunal noted the development represented appropriate infill intensification in a transit-friendly area and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the City of Ottawa Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant minor variances to permit the construction of a seasonal air-inflated sports dome over existing tennis courts.

The requested variances involved building height, setback from the highwater mark, and development within a floodplain overlay.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the uncontested expert evidence demonstrated the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever a property and for associated minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The City did not appear to oppose the appeal.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert evidence in architecture, urban design, and land use planning that the proposed development was a better fit for the neighbourhood than the larger as-of-right semi-detached building permitted by the zoning.

The Tribunal found that the consent applications had due regard for provincial interests and met the statutory criteria, and that the variances satisfied the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.