Jennifer Alexis Gibb Savini

Following the settlement of a judicial review application where the respondent conservation authority agreed to quash its own decision and hold a rehearing, the applicant sought costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request for costs, applying the general rule that administrative tribunals neither pay nor receive costs on judicial review absent exceptional circumstances or adversarial conduct.

The applicant brought an application in the Divisional Court to quash two municipal by-laws relating to a zoning amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

Realizing the application should have been brought in the Superior Court of Justice, the applicant moved under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the application had procedural merit because the by-laws were passed while the matter was under appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal, it lacked substantive merit.

The illegality was purely procedural, and transferring the matter would cause prejudice to the developer by delaying an ongoing project.

The Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan.

The parties disputed the contents of the Issues List.

The Appellants sought to include policies related to aggregates, rural and resource management, transportation, and water, arguing the Provincial Planning Statement must be read in its entirety.

The District and added parties argued the Issues List should be restricted to issues specifically named in the Notices of Appeal, consistent with a prior Tribunal order.

The Tribunal agreed with the District, finding its Issues List best complied with the prior order and provided a fair and just process.

A 13-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for February 2027, and a Procedural Order was issued.

The applicant appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications to sever a property into four new residential lots and one retained lot, each containing two additional residential units.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the municipality reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed severances were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans and zoning by-laws.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted provisional consent subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 495-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed planning instruments had regard for provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal approved the amendments and the draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the County's amendment to the conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties reported active settlement discussions and requested a third CMC to allow sufficient time to resolve outstanding issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a third CMC for May 25, 2026, and directed the parties to provide a revised Procedural Order and Issues List if a settlement is not reached.

The Applicants brought a motion challenging the Appellants' standing to appeal a zoning by-law amendment that permitted an event venue on the Applicants' lands.

The Appellants argued they had standing under s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Planning Act because they held a registered easement over the rezoned lands for a water line.

The Tribunal applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that the easement did not confer ownership of the servient tenement.

As the Appellants were not registered owners of the lands to which the by-law applied, they lacked standing.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The Lake Associations brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by Our Muskoka, Miller Paving, and Elizabeth Lippa against the District's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the plan was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or failed to conform with the District Official Plan, as required by s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion, dismissing Our Muskoka's appeal entirely for lacking the mandatory explanations and land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Miller Paving and Lippa appeals in part, scoping them to remove broad claims of non-conformity that lacked specific policy references.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by The Trident Members Inc. against the County of Hastings' amendment to conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision.

The appellant requested a four-week adjournment on consent to allow newly retained counsel to prepare and to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, scheduled a second Case Management Conference, and granted participant status to a local resident.

The appellant appealed the Township's denial of a minor variance required to permit residential development on a lot that fronts an unassumed public road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variance.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellants against the Municipality of Port Hope's refusal to issue a demolition permit for heritage properties.

The appellants seek to demolish existing buildings to construct a 192-bed long-term care home.

The Tribunal noted ongoing mediation efforts and scheduled dates for a further Case Management Conference and a three-day hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development.

The sole remaining issue was whether the development would negatively impact the Garden Hill Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI).

Prior to the re-hearing, the Ministry of Natural Resources adjusted the ANSI boundary, removing the subject property.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the development would have no negative impacts, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss appeals of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan filed by the responding parties.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the Official Plan was inconsistent with provincial policy or failed to conform to the District Official Plan, and failed to disclose apparent land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the alleged lack of conformity and inconsistency were not clearly identified or explained in the original notices of appeal as required by the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals without a hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for a 495-unit residential development.

On consent, the Tribunal granted party status to three entities.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Class III Development Permit Application to construct six street-facing townhouses.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement that addressed the Town Committee's compatibility concerns by increasing the exterior side yard setback and requiring tree planting.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conformed to the applicable official plans and by-laws, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to issue the permit subject to the agreed conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the procedures leading up to and including a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 20, 2025.

The hearing concerns an appeal regarding the failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment to permit a 10-lot subdivision on rural lands.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

The subject lands contained a portion of a Provincially Significant Area of Natural or Scientific Interest (ANSI).

The municipality brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the features of the ANSI, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would have no negative impact on the natural features or ecological functions of the ANSI, as the appellant's expert evidence focused exclusively on the subject lands rather than the ANSI as a whole.

The appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal convened a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, with the Township alleging that certain issues raised by the appellants did not comply with the Planning Act regarding consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformity with the District Official Plan.

The appellants argued that a motion on the validity of the Issues List would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to address these disputes and directed the provision of updated policy changes.

The Appellant appealed the District Municipality of Muskoka's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment to permit a 10-lot rural estate subdivision.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to five individuals who raised common concerns.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for October 2025.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the municipality following a successful appeal of the municipality's refusal of zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The applicant argued the municipality's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious because it failed to lead evidence supporting its refusal, filed its planner's witness statement late, and introduced a new issue not on the issues list.

Furthermore, the municipality sought to recover its own legal costs from the applicant pursuant to a Cost Acknowledgement Agreement.

The Tribunal found the municipality's conduct unreasonable and frivolous, noting its disregard for the procedural order and failure to justify the council's decision.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,500.