Jennifer Alexis Gibb Savini

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

The parties disputed whether certain issues on the draft Issues List complied with the statutory requirements of s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to engage in further discussions and explore Tribunal-led mediation to resolve the Issues List.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing regarding Mineral Aggregate Resource Policies until the Issues List is finalized.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit three two-storey stacked townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and the Town of Lindsay Official Plan, representing appropriate residential intensification.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended in accordance with the settlement.

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive right-of-way over a 100-foot path on the respondents' property and damages for nuisance and interference.

The court first ruled on a preliminary motion to strike two affidavits filed by the applicants, finding them inadmissible under Rule 39.02(2).

On the main application, the court found that the applicants failed to establish a prescriptive easement, primarily because the property owners (both current and previous) did not have knowledge of the path's use and did not acquiesce to it.

Furthermore, the court found that the easement was not reasonably necessary, as the applicants had previously declined an opportunity to purchase land for a legal access road.

The claim for damages for nuisance and interference was also dismissed, as the respondents' property development did not violate bylaws and did not unduly interfere with the applicants' property enjoyment.

The appellants appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing their applications for consent to sever a rural lot and for minor variances to reduce Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from nearby livestock barns.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed severance and reduced setbacks were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and met the four-part test for minor variances.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consent subject to conditions and authorizing the requested variances.

The Township of Muskoka Lakes brought a motion to dismiss a third-party appeal of its new Official Plan by Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association, arguing the appeal was deemed dismissed under the transition provisions of Bill 185 (Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024).

The Tribunal found that while Our Muskoka did not meet the definition of a 'specified person' under the Planning Act, its appeal remained valid under the transition exception in s. 17(36.0.2)(b) because it was appealing the same decision (the approval of the Official Plan) as other valid appellants.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed, allowing the appeal to continue.

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of an amending zoning by-law concerning the definition of an 'improved street' and conditions for issuing building permits on lots without frontage on an improved street.

The parties engaged in mediation and presented a settlement with proposed modifications to the by-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 32-unit townhouse development.

The municipality argued the development did not support intensification targets and lacked legal road access.

The Tribunal found the road access issue was resolved and that the development conformed to the density and intensification targets of the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and approving the draft plan of subdivision in principle, subject to revised conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's non-decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The parties indicated they are seeking Tribunal-led mediation to resolve both the zoning appeal and related site plan approval issues.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on April 28, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit stacked townhouses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident's association.

The parties advised that a settlement had been reached, and the Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing for October 28, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals/groups.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to determine the validity of one of the appeals in light of Bill 185.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing until the issues list is finalized, and directed the parties to submit a finalized issues list and draft procedural order prior to the next Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to divide a large residential lot into four separate parcels for semi-detached dwellings.

The proposal involved creating three 'flagpole' lots with only 0.76 metres of street frontage, relying on a shared driveway and a Joint Use & Maintenance Agreement for access and servicing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed lots could not function independently or accommodate separate municipal services as required by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposal did not represent good planning and that a Zoning By-law Amendment for a Planned Unit Development would be the appropriate mechanism for such a shared-service development.

The appellant appealed the County of Prince Edward's by-law adopting the Wellington Heritage Conservation District Plan.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement modifying site-specific policies and guidelines to better differentiate between newer and older commercial areas.

Based on uncontested expert heritage and planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications satisfied the Ontario Heritage Act, the Planning Act, and the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on its application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 432-unit residential community.

The issues centered on the adequacy of proposed external servicing improvements, the safety and efficiency of the proposed road network (specifically an S-curve), and the proposed parkland dedication.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed servicing improvements were adequate and did not require a complete replacement of external infrastructure.

The Tribunal also preferred the applicant's transportation evidence, finding the road network safe and efficient.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the parkland dedication had already been settled in a previous agreement.

The appeal was allowed, with final approval withheld pending draft conditions.

The appellants appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would rezone a severed portion of agricultural land to Rural Residential.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence from the Township's Manager of Planning, who had been summoned by the appellants, that the amendment did not conform to the applicable Official Plans and was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because it would result in the loss of agricultural land and exceed the permitted number of severances.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and repealed the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of rental cabins and an accessory dwelling on a property formerly used as a fishing resort.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted a 'new development' or a 'redevelopment' under the County Official Plan, which prohibits new development on private roads.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was a new development, as the previous use ceased in the 1980s and all structures would be new.

Consequently, the proposed development on a private road did not conform to the County Official Plan, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by JRB Williams Enterprises Inc. against the Municipality of Brighton's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a 32-unit residential development.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming three-day video hearing scheduled for September 2024.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate a 13-lot subdivision.

The appellant appealed on the basis that the property falls within the Minimum Distance Separation formulae of an existing and planned dairy barn.

Following the dismissal of the Township's motion to dismiss the appeal, the Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties and scheduled a two-day Merit Hearing.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding a proposed plan of subdivision, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the subject lands were never surrendered to the Crown and remain reserve lands.

The parties informed the Tribunal of a conditional agreement for the MBQ to purchase the lands, which would result in the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal adjourned the motion to allow time for the sale to close or, alternatively, for the MBQ to serve Notices of a constitutional question on the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a yacht club and four individuals on consent.

The parties agreed to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List by June 14, 2024, and a three-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on September 25, 2024.