Jennifer Meader

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the hearing of appeals by Lewis 286 Development Inc. concerning the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to facilitate the development of 309 residential units at 286 Lewis Road.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on September 26, 2025, and established a timeline for the exchange of witness lists, expert reports, and visual evidence.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey mixed-use residential building.

The central issues involved transportation matters, specifically parking stall sizes, parking ratios, and site access onto a major arterial road.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's transportation expert, finding the proposed parking stall sizes and ratios appropriate and the right-in, right-out access configuration safe.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of performance standards for non-residential uses.

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

The Tribunal granted requests from several parties to withdraw their appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a request by Losani Homes to consolidate its site-specific appeals of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law with its appeals of privately-initiated applications for the same properties, finding it would be an effective and efficient use of resources.

Further Case Management Conference dates were scheduled.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy appealed a condition of provisional consent regarding the creation of a new rural residential lot in the Town of Mono.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, setting the hearing dates, filing deadlines, and the issues list, which primarily concerns the appropriateness of a parkland dedication condition.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's dismissal of a complaint regarding the calculation of development charges for a proposed three-building development.

The appellant argued that an overpayment from revised plans for the first two buildings should be applied to the third building based on an alleged pre-payment agreement and equitable principles, including interest.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a pre-payment agreement and holding that it lacked jurisdiction to apply equitable remedies to site-specific development charge determinations under the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal also agreed with the City that no interest was owed for the period when the appellant voluntarily revised its plans.

The County of Brant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the appellant regarding an Engineering Administration Fee of $775,879.67 levied during a draft plan of subdivision approval process.

The County argued the fee was imposed under the Municipal Act and thus outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 69(3) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the fee evolved from previous by-laws as a fee for processing a planning application and therefore fell within its jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the appeal was scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The parties reached a partial settlement regarding site-specific modifications for a proposed parking structure at 201 Elmira Road South, specifically reducing the minimum parking stall dimensions while applying the 1995 Zoning By-law regulations to the rest of the structure.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site-specific modifications.

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

Following a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the conduct of the upcoming video hearing.

The appellant requested a hearing date for its appeal of the City of Guelph's Comprehensive Zoning By-law regarding parking requirements.

The City opposed, arguing that one of the issues was already litigated in a recent minor variance appeal and scheduling it would constitute issue estoppel.

The Tribunal directed that the overlapping issue be held in abeyance pending the minor variance decision, and scheduled a written settlement hearing for the remaining agreed-upon issues.

The appellant brought a motion for the production of a supplemental peer review report prepared by a consultant for the respondent municipality.

The municipality had refused to produce the report on a with-prejudice basis, arguing it was not necessary as they had not committed to calling the author as a witness.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding the report was relevant and necessary to determine the issues for the upcoming phased hearing, and that its production was proportionate and would not cause undue prejudice to the municipality.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding three appeals filed against the County of Brant's Development Charges By-law No. 109-24.

The parties agreed to a procedural timeline for exchanging issues lists and interrogatories.

The Tribunal ordered the submission of a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 25, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner on consent.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a revised draft plan excluding city-owned lands, set deadlines for the procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a seven-day video hearing for October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant concerning the municipality's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application for a 93-unit vacant land condominium.

The Tribunal granted participant status to an abutting landowner, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits for January 2026.

The City of Brantford brought a motion to scope appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL) and to bring the unappealed portions of the CZBL into full force and effect on a city-wide basis.

The appellant parties consented to scoping their appeals to their specific sites or areas.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found that granting the motion represented good planning as it would streamline the development process.

The Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, bringing the CZBL into force save and except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 4, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to correct the spelling of counsel Diana Doracin's name in the appearances list.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. against the City of Brantford's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a residential development with a townhouse block.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal approved a two-phase hearing process, with Phase 1 focusing on the threshold issue of whether a portion of the subject lands are appropriately designated Core Natural Area.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order for the Phase 1 hearing, scheduled for 10 days in November and December 2025.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its January 31, 2025 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the decision to insert Schedules 1 through 6 into Attachment 1.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The appellants appealed the failure of the Region of York to make a decision regarding the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's Official Plan Amendment No. 136.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the OPA, which address growth management and water/wastewater servicing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part and the OPA was approved as modified.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a residential dwelling with reduced Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks from neighbouring livestock facilities.

The subject property is zoned Agricultural but is unsuitable for farming due to its topography.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act, noting that the applicants and neighbours are Old Order Mennonites accustomed to farming odours.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions requiring a development agreement with an odour warning clause and written acknowledgements from neighbouring farm owners.