Jennifer Meader

The applicants brought a motion seeking an extension of the lapsing date for a Draft Plan of Subdivision approved in 2010.

The Town opposed the extension, arguing the applicants had not used best efforts to clear conditions and that the plan should lapse to allow for greater intensification under current planning policies.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had demonstrated best efforts to clear conditions, noting that delays in servicing were partly attributable to the Town.

The Tribunal also found that the applicants would suffer prejudice if forced to restart the planning process, and that the Draft Plan continues to represent good planning and conforms with current provincial and municipal policies.

The motion was granted and the Draft Plan was extended to October 15, 2026.

The appellants appealed the Township of West Lincoln's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 63, which implements a Secondary Plan for lands added to the Smithville Urban Area.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resolving numerous issues.

The Township brought a motion to approve the partial settlement, supported by uncontested expert planning affidavit evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the modified OPA 63 save for scoped site-specific policies, and scheduled a merit hearing for the remaining issues.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for appeals brought by 115 Bridgeport Inc. and 1648386 Ontario Ltd. against the City of Waterloo's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial development.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and filing dates leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 17, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the municipality's approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for a property owned by the applicant.

The Tribunal granted party status to the property owner, directed the appellant to provide a revised issues list, and scheduled a motion for the property owner to seek dismissal of the appeals without a hearing.

The Tribunal also approved a procedural order and scheduled a ten-day hearing on the merits for January 2025.

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 24-unit stacked townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised amendments to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed infill development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the amendments to the 1995 Zoning By-law but noted it lacked jurisdiction to approve anticipated amendments to the City's new 2023 Zoning By-law, which was not before it.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by the appellant against the Township's Community Planning Permit By-law.

The parties reached an agreement resolving 19 of the 27 issues, with the remaining 8 addressed through modifications to the By-law.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended By-law consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

Following a motion hearing, the Tribunal ordered that the Zoning By-law is deemed to come into full force and effect as of April 18, 2023, save and except for specific regulations, maps, and appendices remaining under appeal on a City-wide basis, and the entirety of the by-law as it applies to specific properties remaining under site-specific appeals.

The order also scoped the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to specific geographical areas.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential redevelopment consisting of single detached dwellings, street townhouses, and condominium townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the instruments approved subject to conditions.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, related Official Plan updates, and residential parking requirements.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal consolidated the Parking By-law Appeal with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment appeals.

The Tribunal also scheduled a settlement hearing for April 23, 2024, to address settlements reached with several appellants, and a third Case Management Conference for June 25, 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit two residential condominium developments.

The parties reached a settlement to permit six-storey buildings with site-specific provisions, including a holding provision regarding sanitary infrastructure capacity.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement represented good planning, was consistent with provincial policies, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a proposed Official Plan Amendment, the parties advised the Tribunal that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested new hearing dates.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for October 2024 and directed the parties to provide an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant, 257 5950 Ontario Ltd., appealed a decision by the Property Standards Committee regarding a compliance deadline for repairs or demolition of a dilapidated heritage barn.

The appellant sought an extension of the compliance date from December 31, 2023, to August 31, 2024, citing safety risks and complications arising from a municipal notice of intention to designate the property as cultural heritage.

The court, exercising its broad appellate powers under the Building Code Act, found that while the appellant had been dilatory, the intervening heritage designation notice rendered the Committee's deadline unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the compliance date was extended to August 31, 2024, with no costs awarded due to the split outcome and the appellant's prior inaction.

The Tribunal considered a request for partial approval of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (OPA 79), which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

Following mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resulting in modifications to OPA 79.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified OPA 79 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and partially approved the modified OPA 79, while preserving the rights of the remaining appellants for a future merit hearing.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for directions seeking partial approval of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, save and except for certain sections under appeal.

The City also sought to scope the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to site-specific or area-specific appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the notices of appeal for both respondents only provided reasons related to specific properties and did not justify city-wide appeals.

The Tribunal deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law to be in full force and effect and ordered the respondents to scope their appeals accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development with three residential towers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that revised the proposal, including adjusting tower heights and widths, and reducing parking rates.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended instruments.

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of three two-storey townhouse units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development represents appropriate residential intensification, conforms with provincial and municipal planning policies, and constitutes good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate the development of 38 single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed instruments, which remove linkage identifications and establish site-specific performance standards, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the Growth Plan, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

Stouffville Phase 3 East Landowners Group Inc. (Stouffville LOG) brought a motion to be added as a party to an appeal concerning the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's decision to deny an extension of a draft plan of subdivision approval for Courtney Valley Estates Inc. and Lillipad Developments Inc. Stouffville LOG argued it had a direct interest because its adjacent lands relied on a sanitary sewer connection proposed in the draft plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Stouffville LOG lacked a direct policy interest in the lapsing of the draft plan, as alternative servicing options were available.

The Tribunal also concluded that adding Stouffville LOG as a party would prejudice the Town and was not in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 77-unit townhouse development on an underutilized industrial site.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised proposal, which included a holding provision to phase development pending wastewater treatment plant expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment as it was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The parties reported substantial progress in settlement discussions and requested a partial Settlement Hearing.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a partial Settlement Hearing for January 25, 2024.