Hannah Ruby

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to legalize an over-widened driveway.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to authorize the variance subject to conditions preventing further widening and requiring a curb cutting application.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the statutory tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 28-storey mixed-use building.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment sine die because an Environmental Assessment for Lower Rambo Creek and new hydrological modelling by Conservation Halton were still underway and would directly impact the subject property.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent and directed the parties to provide a written status update by the end of 2026.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's refusal of minor variances required to legalize the conversion of an existing medical office to a detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to replace an existing dwelling with a new one-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented revised variances.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey mixed-use residential building.

The central issues involved transportation matters, specifically parking stall sizes, parking ratios, and site access onto a major arterial road.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's transportation expert, finding the proposed parking stall sizes and ratios appropriate and the right-in, right-out access configuration safe.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of performance standards for non-residential uses.

The appellants appealed the municipality's by-laws designating their properties as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal heard expert heritage planning evidence from the municipality demonstrating that the properties were representative examples of early twentieth-century residential styles and maintained the historic residential character of the streetscape.

The Tribunal found that the properties met the prescribed criteria for designation and dismissed the appeals, leaving the designating by-laws in full force and effect.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission proposed an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan to allow for the development of on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas, among other changes.

Hearing Officers were appointed to receive representations on the proposed amendment.

The Hearing Officers recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments, finding that they meet the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Plan, are consistent with Provincial policies, and are justified.

The amendments include allowing agricultural uses in Earth Science ANSIs, permitting expansions to existing agricultural buildings in key natural heritage features, allowing maple sugar harvesting in the Escarpment Natural Area, and permitting agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses outside of prime agricultural areas in the Escarpment Protection Area.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the city's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a 28-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Halton Region Conservation Authority and participant status to a neighbouring property owner.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for September 2025 to allow for ongoing discussions and the completion of an environmental assessment.

A second case management conference was held regarding appeals against the modified approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit three residential apartment towers.

No requests for party or participant status were received.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the final procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day merits hearing, noting that the parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Burlington's decisions to pass heritage designation by-laws for two properties.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a two-day merit hearing to commence by video on May 27, 2025.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Michael and Gita Sobhi against the City of Burlington's passage of a heritage designation by-law for the property at 488 Locust Street.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a three-day video hearing to commence on March 5, 2025.

The City of Burlington passed by-laws designating two properties on Brant Street as having cultural heritage value.

The appellants separately appealed the designations.

At a Case Management Conference, the City requested that the two appeals be heard together because they relied on the same consultant report.

The appellants consented to the request.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure and scheduled a two-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the City of Burlington's Development Charges By-law No. 41-2024.

The appellant expressed interest in a mediation assessment and requested time to determine if mediation will proceed.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 21, 2024, to allow the parties to explore mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding proposed Amendment No. PC 225 22 to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, which would amend agricultural policies to allow for on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas.

The Tribunal granted party status to Michael and Mark Krapez and Regal Point Elk Farm without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing commencing on March 24, 2025, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an 11-storey apartment building.

Following a Case Management Conference, the parties resolved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to and including the 9-day video hearing scheduled to commence on November 4, 2024.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals of the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment No. 130, the City requested an amendment to the Procedural Order to change the order of argument so it could present first.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the City failed to demonstrate undue prejudice to justify altering the previously ordered procedure, especially since evidence would be submitted in writing.

The Tribunal granted a joint request to adjourn the merit hearing to allow the parties to consider impending provincial legislation.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under the Planning Act after the Town of Ajax refused to accept its site plan applications.

The Town argued the applications were premature because the required pre-consultation meeting had not occurred and the related official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision were not yet in effect.

The Tribunal found that the Town's refusal was not authorized by the Planning Act, as the municipality cannot use a pre-consultation by-law to indefinitely delay or refuse an application, nor can it demand an approved OPA, ZBA, or DPS as a complete application requirement unless explicitly stated in the official plan.

The Tribunal deemed the applications complete as of June 30, 2023.

The Pickering Islamic Centre brought a motion to strike the issues raised by Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation in its appeal of a zoning by-law amendment.

Kindwin sought to impose a holding provision to enforce a private cost sharing agreement for roads and stormwater services.

The Tribunal found that it lacks jurisdiction to enforce private contractual matters or to impose a holding symbol for cost recovery purposes.

The Tribunal struck Kindwin's issues and dismissed its appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a case management conference to address multiple appeals of the City of Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Transitional By-law 039-2022.

The Tribunal heard and approved several settlement motions on consent, which corrected mapping errors and recognized site-specific exceptions for various properties.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendments consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal also issued an order under section 34(31) of the Planning Act deeming the un-appealed portions of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to be in force.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for provisional consent and minor variances to effect a lot line adjustment and access easement for lands containing a heritage-designated Hindu temple.

The Shree Jagannath Temple Canada, which occupies the temple, opposed the application, arguing it would negatively impact parking and future expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot size would provide adequate parking and allow the temple to continue its current operations.

The Tribunal concluded that the consent satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).