Jennifer Alexis Gibb Savini

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an amendment to the County of Hastings Official Plan, which would permit the establishment of a quarry.

The parties were unable to reach a resolution.

The applicant and municipality requested a hearing in mid-April 2024, while the appellant requested a delay until late 2024 to complete necessary studies.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for April 2024, noting that the appellant had sufficient time since filing the appeal to prepare their case.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Municipality of Port Hope's refusal to approve a draft plan of subdivision and implementing zoning by-law.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals on consent, scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 30, 2023, and set a ten-day hearing commencing June 3, 2024.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment to permit a quarry.

The parties advised they intend to call expert witnesses and are completing studies.

The Tribunal determined a full Procedural Order was not required but directed the parties to confer on document exchange and hearing length.

A second CMC was scheduled.

The appellant, GFL Environmental Inc., appealed the Municipality of Oliver Paipoonge's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a major expansion of a waste recycling facility.

During the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted that the appellant withdrew a related Motion for Direction.

The parties agreed to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and indicated their intent to request Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 7-day video hearing for February 2024 and directed the parties to contact the Case Coordinator regarding mediation and a potential second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the legislated timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to a local residents' group and participant status to numerous individuals on consent.

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

The applicants sought to prevent the Township of Wollaston from selling a parcel of land, arguing it was subject to a charitable trust established by a will and, alternatively, that the sale was ultra vires as not properly authorized by by-law.

The court found that no charitable trust was created as certainty of intention was not met, meaning the Township held the land in fee simple.

However, the court agreed that the Township's decision to sell the property was ultra vires because it was not authorized by a specific by-law, rendering the agreement of purchase and sale null and void.

The court noted the Township could rectify this by passing a proper by-law.

Due to mixed success, no costs were awarded.

The appellants appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that provided relief from minimum lot area, frontage, and water setback requirements to permit a single detached dwelling on an existing lot of record.

The appellants raised numerous issues regarding environmental protection, slope stability, and conformity with provincial and municipal policies but provided no expert evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning and environmental risk management evidence from the Township's witnesses, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the County Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a 163-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the County Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, approving the zoning by-law amendment in principle, and adjourned the site plan appeal sine die pending satisfaction of conditions.

The appellant appealed the refusal of the Quinte Conservation Authority to grant permission for development to construct a dwelling and install a holding tank on a property surrounded by wetlands and Lake Ontario.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development did not comply with Ontario Regulation 319/09, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that there would be no negative impact on the control of flooding, erosion, pollution, or the conservation of lands.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed development was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and did not have regard for the Conservation Authority's Policy Manual.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the County's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit a 337-unit seasonal park model trailer site on a 38.6-hectare parcel along Lake Ontario.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that modified the original applications to address concerns regarding seasonal occupancy, wildlife corridors, landscape details, and transportation.

The Tribunal approved the settlement in principle, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance to increase the maximum height of an accessory building (a detached garage) from 5 metres to 6.5 metres.

The appellant presented no planning evidence, arguing primarily that he had previously been denied a similar variance.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and would have no adverse impacts due to vegetative screening.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant brought a motion to strike portions of a witness statement filed by the appellant's lay witness, which contained opinion evidence on cultural heritage and appended an expert report.

The appellant had previously advised it would not call a cultural heritage expert, leading the other parties to withdraw their own experts.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the lay witness was not qualified to give expert opinion evidence on cultural heritage and that appending the expert report without calling the expert was improper and unfair, as it prevented cross-examination.

The witness statement was struck in its entirety, with leave to file a fresh statement omitting the improper evidence.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit shoreline residential zoning and adjust environmental constraint boundaries on a property containing wetlands.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the amendment.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting provisional consent to sever a rural property to create a new residential lot.

The City argued the severance did not conform to the Official Plan's strict criteria for limited residential infill in the General Rural Area and was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement's direction to focus growth in settlement areas.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed severance met the Official Plan criteria, including being opposite a residential lot and being of similar size to surrounding lots within a broader rural catchment area.

The appeal was dismissed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicants sought declarations that a 2006 zoning by-law amendment permitting aggregate extraction on a neighbouring property was of no force and effect, and that the proposed aggregate extraction was not a legal non-conforming use.

The respondent planning board argued the use was permitted under transitional provisions of the 2014 Comprehensive Zoning By-Law and constituted a legal non-conforming use.

The court dismissed the application, finding the transitional provisions valid under the Planning Act and concluding that the aggregate extraction qualified as a legal non-conforming use due to its consistent, albeit intermittent, historical operation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant for the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

A development group requested and was granted party status without opposition.

The parties expressed interest in mediation, and a 12-day video hearing was scheduled.

At a second Case Management Conference concerning an appeal of a consent application, the Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to follow previous directions to amend the application after discovering that the subject parcels had merged.

The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to serve and file an amended application reflecting the accurate property features and relief sought by a new deadline, failing which sanctions may be considered.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved for the upcoming hearing.

The applicant City brought an application for an order directing the respondent property owner to comply with a property standards order requiring the removal of derelict vehicles from his property.

The respondent argued the City lacked jurisdiction over private property and that the vehicles were not derelict.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the City had clear statutory authority under the Building Code Act, 1992 to enact and enforce property standards by-laws.

The court also found, based on the respondent's own evidence, that the eight vehicles on the property were inoperative.

The application was granted, and the respondent was ordered to remove the vehicles within 30 days.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit a commercial development on private services, increased lot coverage, and outside storage.

The central issue was whether the proposal to use private servicing in an urban area constituted 'infilling' under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal preferred the municipality's expert evidence, finding that the proposal was not infilling or minor rounding out, and that it failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the County Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, which explicitly required municipal services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the refusal of the Township's Committee of Adjustment to grant a minor variance to reduce the exterior side yard setback from 7.5 m to 4.2 m for a new single detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence presented by the Township, the Tribunal found that the revised variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.