4 total
Tribunal amends previous decision to clarify County of Grey's authority to clear draft plan conditions.
The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated September 23, 2025.
Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal replaced Paragraph 89 to clarify that the County of Grey has the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and administer final approval of the plan of subdivision under subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act.
Appeals allowed to permit 12 commercial accommodation lodges on lands designated Resort Commercial.
The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the creation of 12 lots for commercial accommodation lodges.
The Town opposed the applications, arguing the proposed use was effectively a short-term accommodation or residential use not permitted in the Resort Commercial designation.
The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, finding that the proposed commercial accommodation lodges are a permitted use, conform with the Official Plans, and represent good planning.
The appeals were allowed, the by-law was amended, and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.
No new common law immunity bars matured adverse possession claim to municipal parkland.
In an appeal concerning adverse possession of municipal parkland, the appellants sought possessory title to a fenced portion of backyard land registered to the municipality.
The majority held that recognizing a common law immunity for municipal parkland would conflict with Ontario’s statutory scheme under the Real Property Limitations Act and related legislation, which preserves matured possessory claims unless a statutory exception applies.
Because the statutory test for adverse possession was satisfied and no applicable statutory immunity barred the claim, the municipality’s title had been extinguished.
The appeal was allowed and the appellants were entitled to fee simple title to the disputed land.
Uncontested portions of comprehensive zoning by-law deemed in force pending resolution of site-specific appeals.
The municipality brought a motion during a Case Management Conference requesting that the uncontested portions of its new comprehensive zoning by-law be deemed to have come into force pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act.
Several appellants had filed appeals regarding specific properties.
Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal granted the motion in part, bringing the by-law into force for all areas except those lands specifically subject to the ongoing appeals.
