Jennifer Elizabeth Biggar

The appellant appealed a condition of provisional consent requiring cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the appraised value of the retained parcel.

The appellant argued the condition exceeded the requirements of the Planning Act and proposed an alternative valuation based only on the 5% land area otherwise required to be conveyed.

The Tribunal found the municipality's condition was appropriate, reflected established practice for determining cash-in-lieu payments, and conformed to the Planning Act and municipal official plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and nine consent to sever applications to create 10 residential lots.

The applicant and the township reached a settlement, but neighboring property owners opposed the development, arguing it did not conform to provincial and local planning policies regarding natural heritage and lot creation outside settlement areas.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the development appropriately protected ecological systems, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and granting provisional consents subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the conditions imposed by the Parry Sound Area Planning Board on a consent application to sever a waterfront property into three lots.

The Township of Carling also appealed after the Board removed certain conditions regarding private road upgrades.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the Township agreed on revised conditions for road upgrades to ensure emergency vehicle access.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed consent, subject to the agreed-upon conditions, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable official plans, has regard for the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and represents good planning.

The appellant sought a minor variance to reduce the front yard (shoreline) setback to accommodate an already constructed attached deck addition.

The Township's Committee of Adjustment denied the application.

On appeal, the Ontario Land Tribunal found that while the variance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, it did not conform with the Growth Plan and failed the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence, such as a shoreline restoration plan or an official survey, to demonstrate that the variance was minor, maintained the intent of the zoning by-law and official plans, or was desirable for the appropriate use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the procedures leading up to a hearing scheduled to commence on December 2, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals by UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. regarding the Township of Oro-Medonte's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and consents to sever 10 new lots.

The procedural order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, and includes an issues list and order of evidence.

The Applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and consents to sever to facilitate a 10-lot residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to neighbouring landowners and participant status to the County and another resident.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day merit hearing and declined the Township's request to order the Applicant to hold a public open house, finding the Tribunal's public process sufficient.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tay's refusal of a temporary Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a fire training academy on a portion of agricultural lands for a three-year period.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed temporary use was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, as it would not preclude the long-term agricultural use of the site.

The appeal was allowed on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending submission of the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicants appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a boathouse expansion and new dock.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted expert evidence in land use planning, aviation, and ecology, the Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policies, avoids critical fish habitat, and does not negatively impact the adjacent aerodrome.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment adopted by the municipality that permitted a religious educational centre, place of worship, and retreat-based uses on its property, arguing the holding provisions were overly broad.

The Tribunal evaluated the appropriateness of holding provisions related to road improvements, site servicing, and the use of existing structures.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, modifying the zoning by-law to require a transportation impact study and agreement for road improvements, preferring the appellant's less restrictive servicing requirements, approving a larger maximum floor area for the religious education centre, and clarifying the scope of non-permitted uses.

The applicant appealed the Township of Severn Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced front yard and watercourse setback for a reconstructed deck.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement requiring a Development Agreement for shoreline restoration and the removal of an existing free-standing deck.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the settlement met the four tests for a minor variance and authorized the variances in principle, withholding its final order pending execution of the agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage business on an agricultural property.

The applicant argued the business qualified as an on-farm diversified use (OFDU).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed trailer sales could operate independently of the farming operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found the proposed commercial highway activity was not appropriate for the rural road.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passing of a zoning by-law amendment relating to a proposed religious educational centre and place of worship.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties presented a draft Procedural Order and indicated that ongoing discussions were positive.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a four-day video hearing to determine the merits of the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City of Orillia Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application to allow an existing driveway to exceed the maximum allowable width.

The City did not call any witnesses and the appellant relied on the City's Planning Division Report, which had originally recommended approval.

The Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it was minor in nature and compatible with surrounding properties.

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

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application intended to facilitate the creation of three new shoreline residential lots.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment, which includes mitigation measures to protect wetlands and deer wintering habitat, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Township's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended zoning by-law.

The appellant appealed the passing of a zoning by-law by the City of Kawartha Lakes, arguing it did not provide adequate permissions for a religious educational centre and place of worship.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested a four-day hearing be scheduled.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing as no draft Procedural Order or Issues List had been submitted, and instead scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage operation as an on-farm diversified use.

In this case management conference, the Tribunal granted party status to two neighbours and participant status to eleven individuals, finalized the issues list, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to recognize an as-built dwelling and sundeck and to remove a dock on a waterfront property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit an as-built dwelling and sundeck.

The parties indicated a strong potential for settlement and requested a hearing date to either present a settlement or scope issues for a contested hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing in July 2022 for settlement or scoping, and a two-day hearing in September 2022 if a contested hearing is necessary.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The appellant sought to rezone a vacant waterfront lot to permit a dock and walkway as the principal use, allowing the appellant to access their backland parcel across the road by boat.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Official Plan and Development Permit By-law do not contemplate a dock as a principal use, but rather as an accessory use.

The Tribunal held that creating a standalone property with a dock as the principal use without tying it to a specific residential property would fail to control the intensity of use and did not represent good planning.

The defendant Town achieved divided success on its summary judgment motion against the plaintiff.

Both parties sought costs of the motion.

The plaintiff had submitted an offer to settle that exactly matched the outcome of the motion.

The court awarded the defendant its costs up to the date of the offer, and the plaintiff its partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court ordered a net costs award of $2,500 in favour of the plaintiff.