G. Meeds

The Appellants appealed the City of Clarence-Rockland's Development Charge By-law No. 2025-93.

At the first Case Management Conference, Clarence Crossing Regional Inc. requested and was granted Party status on consent of the City and without opposition from the Appellants.

The Tribunal set a timeline for the parties to finalize an Issues List and draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 495-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed planning instruments had regard for provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal approved the amendments and the draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Thomas Cavanagh Construction Ltd. for a proposed quarry expansion.

The appeals related to the City of Ottawa's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and a referral by the Ministry of Natural Resources concerning a Class A Licence under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the three matters to ensure an efficient and orderly hearing process.

A 27-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in October 2026.

The Appellant appealed the County of Renfrew's failure to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for 26 waterfront residential lots.

The primary issue was the adequacy and required upgrade standards for a private access road (Pasco Road) located on an unopened road allowance shared by two adjacent townships.

The Tribunal found that because the two townships could not agree on the standard to which the access road should be upgraded, the application failed to satisfy section 51(24)(e) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the proposed subdivision was premature and dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal under section 51(34) of the Planning Act for the failure of the County of Renfrew to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for 26 waterfront residential lots.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Township of McNabb/Braeside and participant status to two individuals.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a four-day merits hearing to commence by video on July 14, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal received updates on settlement discussions and withdrawals, scheduled a three-day merit hearing for the Guibord appeal commencing February 10, 2025, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the Brigil and Youville appeals for February 18, 2025.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of Perth and the County of Lanark to make decisions on a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timelines.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed 94-unit residential subdivision and associated zoning changes were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference for an appeal under s. 51(34) of the Planning Act concerning the County of Lanark's failure to make a decision on a 9-lot draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal approved the parties' draft Procedural Order, noted there were no requests for party or participant status, and scheduled a seven-day video hearing.

The Municipality of Mississippi Mills and the County of Lanark brought a motion to dismiss appeals of two Official Plan Amendments without a hearing.

The appellant, a self-represented individual with a history of bringing unsubstantiated appeals against the municipality, argued the amendments were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding prime agricultural areas.

The Tribunal found the appeals were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant had no direct interest in the lands and did not intend to call expert planning evidence.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a municipal by-law that re-divided the municipality's wards into a four-ward model.

The municipality's consultant had provided both a four-ward and a six-ward option.

The Tribunal found that the four-ward option selected by the municipality resulted in an unacceptable deviation from voter parity (42% deviation, projected to increase to 56%) that could not be justified by the desire to keep a specific community of interest intact.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the municipality to implement the six-ward option, which better satisfied the Carter Principles for effective representation.