Michael Smith

The Appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to increase the permitted lot coverage for accessory buildings from 10% to 11.5%, to allow an existing second dwelling to be converted into a storage building.

The Town and a neighbouring property owner opposed the application, arguing the Tribunal should impose regulations on an Additional Residential Unit (ARU) the Appellant planned to build in an existing garage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the ARU issues were irrelevant to the requested relief and that the minor increase in lot coverage constituted good planning.

The Tribunal also dismissed a motion for recusal based on alleged perception of bias during case management.

The appellants appealed the approval of the Keswick Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 147), arguing that its Urban Area boundary did not conform to the mapping in the Greenbelt Plan and the York Region Official Plan, which appeared to include the subject lands.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the maps were not congruent, the higher-tier plans explicitly direct that precise settlement boundaries are to be determined by local official plans.

The Tribunal concluded that the Keswick Secondary Plan correctly interpreted the boundary policies and was not in conflict with the higher-tier planning instruments.

The applicant appealed the Town of Georgina's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of condominium to permit a townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal of 46 townhouse units.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal had regard for matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving six minor variances to permit the construction of an addition to an existing dwelling for a Crisis Care Centre.

The requested variances included reductions in side yard and centreline setbacks, and a reduction in required parking spaces from 22 to 13.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning, transportation, and architectural evidence presented by the applicant.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policies, maintaining the intent of the official plan and zoning by-law, and being minor and desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment by the municipality.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the municipality reached a settlement regarding proposed policy modifications.

A non-appellant party opposed the settlement but was found to have no independent status to continue the appeal under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence and concluded that the proposed policy modifications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the modifications.

The appellant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing applications for consent to sever and minor variances to facilitate the creation of three residential lots and the construction of three single-detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed consents had regard to Provincial interests and satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also found that the requested minor variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they represented appropriate and desirable infill development compatible with the neighbourhood's character.

The plaintiff sued his mother and sister to enforce an alleged oral agreement concerning a 100-acre parcel of land.

The plaintiff claimed he was entitled to ownership of certain portions of the land and a significant share of the profits from the sale of subdivision lands to a developer, in exchange for his efforts in representing his mother at Ontario Municipal Board hearings.

The court dismissed the action, finding no legally enforceable agreement existed.

The court concluded there was no mutual intention to create legal relations and that the essential terms of the alleged agreement lacked certainty.

The mother's counterclaim for damages was also dismissed for lack of evidence.