Dan Currie

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a heritage permit to facilitate a 52-unit townhouse development on an assembly of lands that included a designated heritage property and lands adjacent to a natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the development in principle subject to conditions.

The Tribunal found that the 15-metre buffer to the valleylands must be designated and zoned as Natural Area, but permitted its use as a Privately Owned, Publicly Accessible Space (POPS) for passive recreation.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed development conserved the cultural heritage resources of the site, represented an appropriate level of intensification, and was compatible with the character of the surrounding stable residential neighbourhood.

The appellants appealed a municipal by-law designating their farm property as being of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a settlement hearing, uncontroverted expert heritage planning evidence was presented indicating that only the historic stone cottage on the property met the criteria for designation, while the other structures did not.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered the by-law amended to apply solely to the cottage.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that addressed concerns regarding access and noise mitigation from adjacent employment lands.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amendments as modified by the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 19-storey rental apartment building located within a Major Transit Station Area and the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.

The City and a neighbourhood association opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the heritage character and too tall for the site.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, as it directs intensification to an underutilized site near transit.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence that the building's design mitigates adverse impacts on privacy, overlook, and cultural heritage resources, and meets the overall intent of the City's Urban Design Manual and Heritage District Plan.

The appellants appealed the City of Windsor's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a four-storey, 23-unit multiple dwelling on a vacant lot in the Walkerville Heritage Area.

The appellants argued the development was incompatible with the neighbourhood's character, citing concerns over massing, setbacks, shadowing, and parking, and argued the City ignored a previous zoning decision for single-family homes on the site.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposal was compatible with the surrounding area, provided an appropriate transition from a commercial arterial road, and met all provincial and municipal planning requirements, including heritage conservation policies.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application seeking to reduce the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from nearby livestock facilities to permit the construction of a residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the municipality revised its position to support a partial reduction in the setbacks, while the appellant sought further reductions to maximize the buildable area.

The Tribunal authorized the municipality's proposed variances, finding they represented a balanced approach that provided a reasonable development opportunity while protecting agricultural resources and minimizing impacts on the adjacent farm.

The appellant's requested further reductions were denied as they failed to have appropriate regard for the MDS Guidelines and the public interest.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use building, as well as an appeal under the Ontario Heritage Act regarding the demolition of a heritage building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for an 18-storey mixed-use development that integrates portions of the existing heritage building.

Based on uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle and directing the City to consent to the demolition subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of two consent applications to create two new residential lots from an existing property in the Village of Queenston.

The Tribunal heard evidence from multiple experts on land use planning, cultural heritage, transportation, and stormwater management.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed lots represent appropriate modest infill that conforms to the Town's Official Plan and Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted evidence that the development would not negatively impact adjacent cultural heritage resources.

While acknowledging concerns about sight lines for the middle lot's driveway due to the road's steep grade, the Tribunal found this could be addressed through the required municipal entrance permit process.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town of Fort Erie Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application for a property.

The application sought variances for rear yard setback, flood elevation setback, and accessory structure height to permit the expansion of a detached dwelling and construction of an accessory building.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the Town reached a settlement, but a neighbouring property owners' association opposed it, requesting an additional condition to restrict the dwelling's use.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and were consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal rejected the association's proposed condition, finding it outside the intent of the Zoning By-law, and allowed the appeal subject only to the condition agreed upon by the appellant and the Town.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Lake of Bays, the Town of Huntsville, and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 32-lot seasonal residential development on Langmaid's Island.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, supported by extensive environmental, cultural heritage, visual impact, and engineering studies, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments subject to conditions, including the protection of natural heritage features through conservation easements and the refinement of mainland parking and access facilities.

The applicant appealed the municipality’s non-decisions on official plan and zoning amendments and also challenged notices of intention to designate and refusals of demolition permits for two heritage dwellings on a greyfield main street site proposed for mixed-use intensification.

The Tribunal held that planning policy at the provincial, regional and local levels supported medium-scale intensification on the site, but that heritage policy and the evidence required retention of both dwellings in substantial form rather than demolition or near-total removal with commemoration.

The Tribunal preferred the municipal heritage evidence that the houses function as visual touchstones in a broader historic streetscape tied to fruit-farming history and that demolition should remain a last resort.

It therefore recommended designation of both properties, denied the demolition relief as sought, and allowed the planning appeals in part by approving the official plan and zoning amendments in principle subject to redesign consistent with the heritage findings.

The applicant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a high-rise residential redevelopment.

The parties reached a settlement proposing two 24-storey towers and the removal of a heritage building, with community benefits provided in exchange for increased density.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and representing good planning.

The appellant appealed the City of Waterloo's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, arguing that its performance standards for tower separations, podiums, and maximum heights prevented the achievement of maximum planned densities and conflicted with the City's Official Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, and the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the City has the statutory authority under section 34 of the Planning Act to regulate building height, bulk, and spacing.

The Tribunal held that provincial policies require optimizing, not maximizing, density and that the zoning regulations appropriately implemented the Official Plan's high priority on good urban design and human-scale development.

Application arising from a commercial land sale dispute over the calculation of acreage payable under an agreement of purchase and sale for development land.

The court interpreted the contractual definition of 'Net Area' to exclude lands not specifically developable for industrial, commercial, or residential use, including environmental features, a road right-of-way, and lands burdened by a hydro easement unless remediated.

The applicant had closed under protest while facing practical compulsion arising from a downstream sale and was permitted to pursue restitution rather than breach of contract.

The respondents were found to have been unjustly enriched by retaining an overpayment of $2,442,595 with no juristic reason for doing so.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake issued Notices of Intention to Designate three adjacent properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The objector argued that the properties did not constitute a 'nested cultural heritage landscape' (CHL) and that their deep setbacks were not heritage attributes.

The Conservation Review Board found that while the properties could be considered a nested CHL for planning purposes under the Provincial Policy Statement, they could not be designated as such under the Act without improperly creating a de facto heritage conservation district.

However, the Board agreed with the Town that the deep setbacks, historically driven by a now-extinct watercourse and changing cultural norms, were valid heritage attributes that contributed to the properties' cultural heritage value.

The Board recommended designation with the nested CHL concept removed from the attributes.