Paul Black

The applicants brought motions under s. 22(6.2) of the Planning Act for directions to determine the completeness of their respective Official Plan Amendment applications seeking to expand the urban boundary.

The City of Ottawa had deemed the applications incomplete, citing the need for additional studies and reports under a newly enacted Development Application Study Policy By-law.

The Tribunal found that the City's Official Plan did not explicitly enumerate the additional requirements, failing the condition precedent in s. 22(5) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the requested materials, including an Infrastructure Capacity Assessment to be completed by the City, were unreasonable requirements for the procedural step of deeming an application complete.

The Tribunal also applied the Clergy principle to find that the new requirements did not apply retroactively to the Caivan application.

Both motions were granted, and the applications were deemed complete as of their respective submission dates.

Minto Communities Inc. appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control to permit a 16-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal heard competing expert planning evidence regarding the proposal's scale, massing, and compatibility with the surrounding Traditional Mainstreet area.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning by promoting urban intensification and housing options.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments and site plan were approved on an interim basis.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential subdivision.

The parties reached a comprehensive settlement proposing approximately 440 residential units, a park block, and protection of a creek corridor.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved.

The applicant appealed the Town of Carleton Place's refusal to grant a development permit for the construction of seven residential units.

The Town argued the development was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Town's Official Plan, primarily citing urban design and architectural concerns.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the applicant's architect and planner, finding the development compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, consistent with the PPS, and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed on an interim basis, contingent upon the parties entering into a development agreement and a common elements plan of condominium.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 1,900-unit residential development.

The sole issue was parkland dedication.

The applicant argued the City was bound by a 2005 Site Plan Agreement (SPA) that required only 2% cash-in-lieu of parkland.

The City sought a 10% dedication based on its current by-law, arguing the 2005 SPA contemplated only commercial/industrial uses.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 2005 SPA was predicated on commercial uses, and under s. 42(7)(b) of the Planning Act, the City had the authority to demand additional parkland conveyance because the lands were now proposed for residential development.