Jennifer Meader

The applicant appealed the Town of Orangeville's refusal of consent, minor variance, and zoning by-law amendment applications intended to facilitate the creation of a new single-detached residential lot and two semi-detached units on a property containing a heritage dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and compliant with the criteria for consent under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, provisionally granted the consent, approved the zoning by-law amendment, and dismissed the minor variance application as redundant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming hearing regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipal authority's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application seeks to permit the development of an 8-storey apartment building, condominium and townhouse units, and one semi-detached dwelling.

The Procedural Order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties, the order of evidence, and the issues list.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and provisional consent to facilitate a six-unit street townhouse development on a property adjacent to heritage resources.

The appellant argued the proposal represented overdevelopment and was incompatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, preferring the evidence of the applicant's and City's planners that the proposal represented an appropriate, modest form of intensification that was compatible with the area and consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential subdivision.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that the municipalities require an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) due to a dispute over population figures.

The applicant agreed to file an OPA application.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the OPA application to be filed and appealed so all matters could be heard together.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications for a proposed 10-storey residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner on consent.

A second Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing on the merits were scheduled.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by landowners against the City of Richmond Hill's Development Charge By-laws.

The parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order, an Issues List, and the scheduling of a 13-day merits hearing.

The Tribunal also scheduled a one-day motion hearing to address a jurisdictional issue raised by the City regarding one of the appeals.

The proceedings were consolidated.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's new Official Plan, Official Plan Amendment 119, and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal approved a Master Procedural Order setting out a phased hearing plan and approved the Procedural Order for the Phase 1A hearing on agriculture issues, scheduling it for April 2023.

The appellant appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 26, which converted certain employment lands to alternative uses.

Several parties brought motions to dismiss the appeal under section 17(45) of the Planning Act, arguing that the appellant's issues were statute-barred because the notice of appeal failed to explain how the decision was inconsistent with or failed to conform to provincial plans, as required by section 17(37.1).

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the notice of appeal lacked the required explanations and that the appellant could not expand its appeal beyond the initial submission.

The Tribunal granted the motions and dismissed the appeal without a full hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval to permit a 29-storey mixed-use development.

Following a previous Tribunal decision granting the appeal, the parties reached a settlement on the final form of the planning instruments.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal approved the official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan subject to conditions.

The appellant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent's expert reply witness statements, arguing they constituted improper reply evidence and an attempt to split the respondent's case.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the rule against splitting a case applies to the presentation of evidence at a hearing, not to pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal held that the reply evidence was responsive to the appellant's expert reports and that striking the evidence would prejudice the respondent and the public interest.

The appellant was granted the opportunity to file sur-reply witness statements to remedy any potential prejudice.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Zoning By-law No. 17-240 and Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. 69.

The City and the remaining city-wide appellants, Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited and Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust, reached a settlement involving modifications to the commercial and mixed-use zone regulations.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement and deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law in force.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by Joseph and Laura Puopolo against the Region of Waterloo's adoption of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (ROPA 2).

The settlement proposed utilizing the appellants' lands as a stormwater retention pond and outlet facility, freeing up other lands within ROPA 2 for residential development without expanding the urban area.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the Regional Official Plan, allowed the appeal in part, and amended ROPA 2 accordingly.

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a self-storage facility.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development on vacant lands within an existing urban area promotes efficient land use and conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments, finding the proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

At a case management conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, the Tribunal granted party status to Rex Clair Limited without objection.

The Tribunal also noted the assumption of an appeal by a successor in title and scheduled a further case management conference for April 2022 to consider the amendments.

The Applicant/Appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of five street townhouse dwellings on a property previously used as a Masonic Hall.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development had regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the requested amendments.

The Tribunal convened a case management conference to address scheduling issues for a motion by the appellant to strike portions of the municipality's reply witness statements in an appeal under the Development Charges Act.

As the motion decision was required before the hearing on the merits, and scheduling constraints prevented an earlier oral hearing, the Tribunal scheduled the motion for the original hearing start date and adjourned the five-day hearing on the merits to a later date.

The parties requested a further Case Management Conference (CMC) to address details of phasing and outstanding matters in the Procedural Order regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 24, 2022.

The applicant appealed the Township of Wilmot's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to sever an undeveloped parcel into two residential lots.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement contingent on determining a drainage solution.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Region Official Plan, and Township Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the applications, with the order withheld until a satisfactory drainage solution is confirmed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming video hearing regarding appeals by the Ancaster Village Heritage Community against the City of Hamilton's approval of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and consent applications for the property at 15 Church Street.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties, and the issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to consider a draft Procedural Order for appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence on June 13, 2022.