Ruth Victor

The parties engaged in Tribunal-led mediation and reached a settlement regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendments 34, 37, and 38 to the Town of Oakville's Livable Oakville Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the revised OPA 34 represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the revised OPA 34, while scoping or maintaining certain site-specific appeals for future determination.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amendments.

Mattamy brought a motion to consolidate two competing Official Plan Amendment (OPA) appeals regarding the Southwest Georgetown secondary plan, and to have its site-specific zoning and draft plan appeals heard together with the OPA appeals.

The Town brought a preliminary motion to strike the reply affidavit of Mattamy's planning expert, arguing it contained legal advocacy.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion to strike, finding the affidavit relevant but noting it would separate the planning opinion from the advocacy.

The Tribunal dismissed Mattamy's motion in its entirety, finding that hearing the site-specific appeals together with the OPA appeals would be premature, potentially prejudicial to the approval authorities, and could inappropriately invert the planning hierarchy.

The Tribunal also found no appreciable benefit to formally consolidating the two OPA appeals.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant 18 minor variances to permit a 67-unit standard condominium townhouse development.

The variances related to density, building height, setbacks, parking, and landscaping.

The City supported the variances at the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The applicants sought minor variances to enlarge their home and replace a garage, requiring a private force-main connection to municipal wastewater services instead of a septic system.

The Town of Oakville and the Regional Municipality of Halton appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval due to servicing concerns.

The parties reached a settlement, agreeing to conditions for the private wastewater force-main.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized the variances subject to the agreed conditions.

The Crown appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board awarding compensation for injurious affection to two groups of landowners following the expropriation of land for Highway 407.

The Crown argued the lands' value was already limited by the Parkway Belt West Plan and had no urban development potential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Board's findings that, but for the physical construction of the highway, the lands would likely have been released from the Plan and developed.

The loss of this opportunity was directly caused by the highway's construction, constituting compensable injurious affection.