Harold George Elston

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to approve a site plan and its decision regarding conditions of a heritage permit for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, a resident sought participant status to raise concerns about the building's mass and height.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding those issues were already resolved in a prior settlement and Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

A fourth Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by the applicant against the respondent's failure to approve site plans for a commercial development within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal removed the applicant's former counsel from the record on consent.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions, including deadlines for the respondent to comment on technical studies and for the parties to submit a draft Issues List, and scheduled a fifth Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the new Official Plan for the Township of Clearview.

One appellant reached a settlement in principle, and the Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider it.

The remaining appellants requested a further Case Management Conference to continue settlement discussions and address technical issues.

The Tribunal granted the requests and scheduled a third Case Management Conference.

The Town of Wasaga Beach brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Achille Developments Ltd. concerning applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Town argued the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under section 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act because the Town Council passed a resolution categorically refusing to assume any public works or enter into development agreements for the proposed subdivision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that a municipal resolution refusing to provide servicing does not automatically eliminate the reasonable prospect of success of an appeal on land use planning grounds, and the appellant is entitled to a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit an existing cottage addition and accessory structures.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant brought a motion seeking an order confirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the appeal was not substantially different from the application considered by Township Council.

The Township raised concerns about the scope of the appeal and the lack of planning details in the original application.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, confirming its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and dismissed the applicant's request to strike portions of the Township's response based on alleged settlement privilege.

A two-day merit hearing was scheduled.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by three appellants against the new Official Plan for the Township of Clearview.

The parties requested a second CMC to allow related site-specific appeals and applications to proceed, which may be consolidated with or render moot the current appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for October 17, 2025, and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order or status update by October 10, 2025.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of 19 row dwelling units.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

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

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal dated October 27, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, the court made no order as to costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Achille Developments Ltd. for a proposed 364-unit residential subdivision in the Town of Wasaga Beach, following the Town's failure to make decisions on official plan, zoning, and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Simcoe and Wasaga Sands Heritage Group Ltd., and participant status to several individuals.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for September 2025.

The appellant appealed the refusal of consent applications to sever and create two additional residential lots in the Town of Wasaga Beach.

The Town supported the applications but did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence that the proposal conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement and local official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted provisional consents subject to conditions, including a requirement for a landscape plan to address residents' concerns regarding tree protection.

The appellants appealed two zoning by-law amendments passed by the Township of Clearview.

The first amendment permitted a new farm residential dwelling outside the existing farm cluster, and the second permitted an Agricultural Research and Training Centre as an on-farm diversified use.

The Tribunal found that locating the new dwelling on lower-capability agricultural lands preserved prime agricultural areas, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed training centre qualified as an on-farm diversified use and agritourism, compatible with surrounding agricultural operations.

The appeal regarding the dwelling was dismissed, and the appeal regarding the training centre was allowed in part to implement a settlement agreement.

The applicant and the City of Owen Sound brought a motion for costs against the appellant after the appellant withdrew its appeal of a zoning by-law amendment two days before the scheduled hearing.

The moving parties argued the appeal was frivolous and the late withdrawal caused unnecessary expenses.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith, noting the appellant had a statutory right to appeal and withdrew after reviewing the applicant's planning witness statement.

The motion for costs was denied.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Clearview's approval of two Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a change to the maximum required setback for a proposed single-detached dwelling and an on-farm diversified use.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order on consent and scheduled a three-day Hearing of the Merits.

The Tribunal also noted that the appeal by two of the appellants had been settled, with the settlement to be presented at the merits hearing.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding three related appeals concerning commercial and residential developments in the City of Owen Sound.

The appeals involved two zoning by-law amendments to permit mixed-use and commercial buildings, including a grocery store, and a consent application for an access easement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposals consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement agreements.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of two Zoning By-law Amendments that would permit an additional single-detached dwelling and an on-farm diversified use on the subject lands.

The parties requested additional time to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List due to ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the remaining party to submit the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed the Township's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit a 74-unit seasonal recreational trailer park as an accessory use to an existing marina.

The appellants raised concerns regarding land use compatibility, noise, and the protection of the Natural Heritage System, specifically arguing that the proposed vegetation protection zone was insufficient under the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and approved the amendments, accepting the uncontradicted expert evidence that the proposal conforms with applicable provincial and local planning policies, adequately protects natural heritage features, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal under section 34(11) of the Planning Act by the applicant against the Township's refusal to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application sought to rezone a portion of the subject lands from Environmental Protection to Rural to expand the building envelope.

The Tribunal approved the consent Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The Applicant appealed the Town's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling and a dock closer to the shoreline.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, Steven Page, on consent of the Town and over the Applicant's objection.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a two-day merit hearing.

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Meaford's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a five-storey residential condominium.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending submission of the final planning instruments.

This was a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the municipality's approval of zoning by-law amendments and a consent application for a commercial and residential development.

The Tribunal scheduled separate consecutive video hearings for the three related appeals and directed the parties to submit draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists.