Jennifer Meader

At a case management conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to decide on an Official Plan Amendment for a settlement area boundary expansion, a party brought a motion raising constitutional issues regarding the duty to consult under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the party, not being an Indigenous community or authorized representative, lacked standing to assert a breach of the duty to consult.

The Tribunal also declined to order independent technical studies or adjourn the proceeding.

The Tribunal finalized the issues list, allowing an issue regarding consistency with PPS policy 6.1.2 but striking an issue regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit the construction of an accessory building on a property designated Agricultural Area and located within the Greenbelt Natural Heritage System.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a written hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances for maximum height and gross floor area met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Greenbelt Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to permit the severance of a corner lot and the construction of semi-detached dwellings with additional residential units.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, granting provisional consent and authorizing variances for lot area, frontage, coverage, exterior side yard setback, and eave height, finding they met the tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and respected the neighbourhood's eclectic character.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance to reduce the required parking spaces from two to one, citing a lack of justification and potential neighbourhood impact.

The Tribunal also upheld a standard municipal condition requiring an acoustical report due to the property's proximity to railway tracks.

The Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians appealed the Minister's approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 45) for lands in Kitchener.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine the validity of the appeal because the Six Nations had not made oral or written submissions to City Council prior to the OPA's adoption, as required by s. 17(36) of the Planning Act.

The Six Nations argued that the Minister failed to discharge the constitutional duty to consult and that the Tribunal should interpret the appeal provisions liberally.

The Tribunal found that the statutory requirement under s. 17(36) is clear and non-discretionary.

Because the Six Nations did not make the required submissions to Council, they lacked standing to appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to expand the settlement area boundary.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner who raised concerns about density and environmental impacts.

The new party also filed a Notice of Constitutional Question regarding the Crown's duty to consult Indigenous groups, which the Tribunal scheduled to be heard as a motion for directions.

The Tribunal declined the applicant's request to schedule a hearing, finding it premature, and instead scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a commercial plaza.

At the first case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal approved the draft procedural order and scheduled a second case management conference and a three-day video hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a city-wide zoning by-law filed by Rymal Road Apartments Hamilton Ltd. The City argued that the appellant had no right of appeal under s. 34(19)2.2 of the Planning Act because the by-law did not modify the zoning of the appellant's lands, and therefore did not 'apply' to them.

The appellant argued that the by-law applied because its lands were shown on the by-law's schedules.

The Tribunal applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that a zoning by-law only applies to land where it identifies the zoning applicable to that land.

The Tribunal held that the legislative intent of Bill 185 was to restrict third-party appeals, and adopting the appellant's broad interpretation would undermine this purpose.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's decision to impose certain conditions on a consent application to sever a lot for two semi-detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the disputed conditions, including requirements related to noise warnings and environmental protection.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised conditions were reasonable, consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the conditions.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 1238576 Ontario Limited concerning the failure of the Township of Centre Wellington to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a residential subdivision.

Following an adjournment of the originally scheduled hearing, the Tribunal issued a revised Procedural Order setting out the schedule and requirements leading up to a 5-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 5, 2026.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development with a townhouse block.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the Official Plan Amendment, agreeing that the subject lands are developable and not provincially significant wetlands.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Official Plan Amendment based on expert planning and ecological evidence, and scheduled a further hearing to address the remaining zoning and subdivision appeals.

The appellant home builders' association appealed the respondent municipality's development charge by-laws.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the by-laws, including shifting certain Parks & Recreation project costs to a post-period benefit, removing a library project from the eligible costs, and deferring residential development charge payments to the occupancy permit stage.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified by-laws complied with the Development Charges Act and approved the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Brantford's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential community with approximately 489 units.

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal approve the planning instruments via a written hearing.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development conforms to the Provincial Planning Statement and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision were approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 1238576 Ontario Limited under section 34(11) of the Planning Act, following the Township of Centre Wellington's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to rezone open space to a residential zone to create a woodland corridor.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for May 2026 and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and approved a procedural order.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard and approved a settlement between BSC Landco Inc. and the City regarding the property at 555 Greenwich Street.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to rezone a portion of the property from 'Core Natural' to a 'Holding - General Employment' zone, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 19-storey rental apartment building located within a Major Transit Station Area and the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.

The City and a neighbourhood association opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the heritage character and too tall for the site.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, as it directs intensification to an underutilized site near transit.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence that the building's design mitigates adverse impacts on privacy, overlook, and cultural heritage resources, and meets the overall intent of the City's Urban Design Manual and Heritage District Plan.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy appealed a condition of provisional consent imposed by the Town of Mono's Committee of Adjustment that required the payment of a 5% Parkland Levy.

The consent allowed the creation of a new lot with an existing dwelling, leaving the retained lot for the extension of the Bruce Trail.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and removed the condition, finding that the levy was unreasonable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act because the severance did not create a need for additional parkland.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that imposing the levy on a recognized public body whose mandate is to provide public recreational trails was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and local official plans.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to grant an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 264-unit residential development, including an eight-storey apartment building and stacked townhouses, on a former school site.

The appellant argued the development was appropriate intensification within a Major Transit Station Area.

The City contended the scale and massing were incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood and inappropriate for a local road.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed development did not conform to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan's policies on compatibility and urban structure, as it represented a sudden leap in intensification rather than a gradual evolution of the neighbourhood.

The applicant appealed the non-decision (indefinite deferral) of the City of Guelph's Committee of Adjustment regarding an application for minor variances to reduce permanent and temporary parking requirements for a residential development.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, finding the indefinite deferral was tantamount to a refusal.

On the merits, the Tribunal authorized the variances, finding they met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the reduced parking rates were justified by site-specific studies, supported transit use, and avoided an oversupply of parking.

The variances were approved subject to conditions, including the provision of additional temporary spaces and transit passes.

A residential condominium developer sought a declaration that communications from the Chief Building Official regarding parking requirements constituted appealable orders or decisions under the Building Code Act.

The developer argued that emails threatening permit revocation if occupancy permits were requested without adequate parking prevented it from applying for occupancy.

The court found that the emails were pre-emptive communications indicating the CBO's future intentions, not final decisions on actual occupancy permit applications.

As no formal decision refusing occupancy had been made, the court lacked jurisdiction to intervene.

However, the court maintained a temporary parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per unit pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on the developer's parking variance appeal.