Harold George Elston

The moving parties sought costs against the Township of Clearview following the Township's withdrawal of its appeals regarding a development permit application and a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment.

The moving parties argued that the Township's conduct, which included multiple adjournment requests and a failure to properly classify the environmental assessment, was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Township argued that the Tribunal was functus officio following the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that it retained jurisdiction to award costs but dismissed the motions, finding that the Township's conduct did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant municipality and an individual appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a consent to sever a residential property to create a new lot.

The municipality argued the severance did not conform to its Official Plan regarding neighbourhood character and lot fabric.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed lot frontage was significantly narrower than the established neighbourhood lot fabric.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the provisional consent, finding it did not satisfy section 51(24)(c) of the Planning Act.

The South Bracebridge Environmental Protection Group appealed the Town of Bracebridge's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of a private school complex.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms with the applicable Official Plans, provided that the minimum buffer for wetlands and watercourses is increased from 15m to 30m.

The Tribunal also required the inclusion of a holding symbol that can only be lifted after site-specific environmental impact statements, including comprehensive amphibian and bat surveys, demonstrate no negative impacts on significant wildlife habitat.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement these amendments.

The appellant appealed a municipally initiated zoning by-law amendment intended to regulate cannabis cultivation and production facilities in the Township of Clearview.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised amendment to the Tribunal.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and representative of good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the submission of a final site plan application and the final form of the zoning by-law amendment.

The appellants appealed the City's approval of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a commercial and residential development.

At the first case management conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the applicant.

The parties requested a second case management conference to finalize the procedural order and issues list, and to consider the potential consolidation of related appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a second case management conference and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and objections to an Aggregate Resources Act license application for a quarry expansion.

The Tribunal consolidated the two matters, declined to schedule a further CMC, and scheduled a 20-day video hearing.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were approved to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Muskoka Environmental Alliance Inc. against a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Town of Bracebridge.

The amendment would permit the expansion of the Childs Pit/Quarry operation.

The parties agreed that a forthcoming appeal under the Aggregate Resources Act should be consolidated with this matter.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow for the referral and consolidation of the appeals.

The applicants appealed the North Almaguin Planning Board's refusal of a consent application to sever a rural residential waterfront lot on Commanda Lake.

The Board had refused the application on the basis that the lake was at capacity and that its guiding principles limited severances to once every 15 years.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' experts, finding that the lake was not at capacity based on current data and that the 15-year limitation was not grounded in applicable policy.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, concluding the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-Law to permit parcels of land to be considered as one lot for planning purposes and to identify shoreline activity areas.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal conferred participant status to a local resident on consent.

The parties jointly requested Tribunal-led mediation, which the Tribunal facilitated.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to update on mediation results and address outstanding issues, including clarification of the titled ownership of the subject property.

At a case management conference concerning an appeal of a zoning by-law regulating cannabis operations, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to apply only to the appellant's property.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the by-law for all lands within the by-law area except for the appellant's property, on a without prejudice basis.

A procedural order was issued and a six-day hearing on the merits was scheduled.

The appellants appealed the Town of Bracebridge's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the development of 36 row townhouse dwellings.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is an appropriate infill project that has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and conforms with the District of Muskoka and Town of Bracebridge Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the subject lands to Residential Type 4 Special – 38 Holding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application sought height exemptions to permit the construction of a four-storey dwelling and accessory structures.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local association and scheduled a four-day hearing of the merits to commence on June 19, 2023.

A Procedural Order was issued to govern the 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 building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests for participant status from several individuals.

Over the appellants' objections that most requesters lived beyond 120 metres of the site, the Tribunal granted participant status to all requesters, agreeing with the municipality that the site is prominent and the development is of community-wide importance.

The Tribunal also scheduled an eight-day video hearing and approved a Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use waterfront development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal comprising nine buildings, including a hotel, townhouses, and an apartment building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement by-law.

The applicant appealed the Township of Clearview's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to rezone a portion of the subject lands from Environmental Protection to Rural.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested a second CMC to allow for further discussions with the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority regarding environmental controls.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a second CMC for May 2023.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Skydevco Inc. against the City of Meaford's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The Tribunal denied a party status request from two local residents, granting them participant status instead, and granted participant status to 25 other individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Town of Bracebridge.

The amendment would permit the conversion of a hunt camp to a seasonal dwelling.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed the Township of Clearview's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 06-54.

Following a settlement, the parties proposed a Zoning By-law Amendment to zone the subject properties, which were historically used for aggregate extraction, to the Extractive Industrial Zone.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the amendment.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit residential development on portions of an existing golf course.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policy, protected natural heritage features, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part and the instruments approved in principle.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for a draft plan of condominium and zoning by-law amendment to permit a four-unit townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving site plan modifications, including a revised parking layout and the addition of storage sheds.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence of the municipality's planner, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the municipal Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.