Jasmine Fraser

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of Tiny's Zoning By-law No. 25-039 and Official Plan Amendment No. 5, which introduce a 'Shoreline Development Area'.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together, granted party status to several entities, confirmed the withdrawal of certain appeals, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

A 19-day merit hearing was scheduled for April 2027, and a further Case Management Conference was scheduled for July 2026.

The applicant, a prospective municipal election candidate, brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction staying a Notice of Trespass issued by the respondent Township following a protest she organized.

The Notice barred her from municipal properties, which would prevent her from filing her election nomination in person.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue regarding her freedom of expression, irreparable harm to her electoral participation and reputation, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant given the lack of evidence of misbehaviour.

The court granted the injunction and directed the Township to take no further steps against the applicant under its Citizen Code of Conduct pending the main application.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Tiny's Zoning By-law No. 25-039 and Official Plan Amendment No. 5, which introduced a Shoreline Development Area.

The Tribunal granted party status to two entities and participant status to nine individuals and associations.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals had been administratively consolidated and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal received status updates indicating that several site-specific appeals had been resolved, while constructive discussions continued on the remaining city-wide and site-specific appeals.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second multi-day Case Management Conference for March 2026 to further organize the proceedings and establish a Procedural Order for any unresolved issues.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to seven requestors and ordered that the two appeals be heard together.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for May 2026.

The appellant requested a hearing date for its appeal of the City of Guelph's Comprehensive Zoning By-law regarding parking requirements.

The City opposed, arguing that one of the issues was already litigated in a recent minor variance appeal and scheduling it would constitute issue estoppel.

The Tribunal directed that the overlapping issue be held in abeyance pending the minor variance decision, and scheduled a written settlement hearing for the remaining agreed-upon issues.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 7, 2024.

The amendment corrected the overall height of the proposed 91-storey mixed-use building from 338.3 m to 328.4 m.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to increase the permitted height of a mixed-use building from 85 to 94 storeys.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit a 91-storey building.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan, noting it would provide additional housing and serve as a landmark without creating unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amendments were approved in principle.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding three appeals related to Official Plan Amendment 254 and site-specific zoning by-law amendments in the City of Brampton.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities and deferred the decision on whether to hear the appeals together to a second CMC, directing the parties to refine their issues lists and propose a hearing structure.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

Following a motion hearing, the Tribunal ordered that the Zoning By-law is deemed to come into full force and effect as of April 18, 2023, save and except for specific regulations, maps, and appendices remaining under appeal on a City-wide basis, and the entirety of the by-law as it applies to specific properties remaining under site-specific appeals.

The order also scoped the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to specific geographical areas.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, related Official Plan updates, and residential parking requirements.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal consolidated the Parking By-law Appeal with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment appeals.

The Tribunal also scheduled a settlement hearing for April 23, 2024, to address settlements reached with several appellants, and a third Case Management Conference for June 25, 2024.

The appellant appealed the City's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a high-rise mixed-use development.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeals without a hearing under the Planning Act and Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals, finding that the appellant failed to provide expert planning evidence or disclose any genuine, legitimate, and authentic land use planning grounds to warrant a full hearing on the merits.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan control for a proposed mixed-use development, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, 1956565 Ontario Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a three-week merit hearing to commence in February 2025.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for directions seeking partial approval of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, save and except for certain sections under appeal.

The City also sought to scope the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to site-specific or area-specific appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the notices of appeal for both respondents only provided reasons related to specific properties and did not justify city-wide appeals.

The Tribunal deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law to be in full force and effect and ordered the respondents to scope their appeals accordingly.

The appellant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' failure to approve a site plan application for a six-storey, 158-unit rental apartment building.

The City and area residents raised concerns regarding urban design, building orientation, shadowing, and privacy impacts on adjacent low-density residential properties.

The Tribunal found that the proposed site plan complied with the existing zoning by-law, provided appropriate setbacks and landscaping to mitigate impacts, and conformed to the applicable official plans and provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed and the site plan was approved in principle.

The appellant, Enbridge Gas Inc., appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting provisional consent to create a permanent easement over the applicants' property to provide access to an adjacent landlocked parcel.

Enbridge argued the easement, which would overlap an existing access road used by Enbridge pursuant to a gas storage lease agreement, contravened the Planning Act by failing to protect its priority access rights.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed shared access did not create adverse planning impacts, conformed with the municipal official plan and zoning by-laws, and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also declined Enbridge's request to impose a condition requiring a tri-party priority agreement, finding it unreasonable and outside its jurisdiction.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The parties reported substantial progress in settlement discussions and requested a partial Settlement Hearing.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a partial Settlement Hearing for January 25, 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan control applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to an adjacent landowner, 115 Saulter South LP.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to Hydro One Networks Inc. and Tepfam Holdings Inc., with leave to renew requests for party status at the next conference.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a review decision of the Chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal, which had set aside a previous tribunal decision and ordered a rehearing regarding a zoning by-law amendment that restricted cannabis and hemp cultivation.

The moving party argued the Chair breached procedural fairness by failing to provide notice or an opportunity to respond, and by raising a new ground of review.

The Divisional Court found that the review decision was a final order, not interlocutory, but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The Court held that the Chair followed the established rules, the moving party had actual notice but chose not to respond, and the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to merit an appeal.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal granted party status to 2793031 Ontario Inc. on consent.

The parties advised that discussions were ongoing to scope the issues and potentially bring parts of the by-law into force.

The Tribunal scheduled a scoping motion and a second Case Management Conference, and directed the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.