Jennifer Savini

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of an amending zoning by-law concerning the definition of an 'improved street' and conditions for issuing building permits on lots without frontage on an improved street.

The parties engaged in mediation and presented a settlement with proposed modifications to the by-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 32-unit townhouse development.

The municipality argued the development did not support intensification targets and lacked legal road access.

The Tribunal found the road access issue was resolved and that the development conformed to the density and intensification targets of the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and approving the draft plan of subdivision in principle, subject to revised conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's non-decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The parties indicated they are seeking Tribunal-led mediation to resolve both the zoning appeal and related site plan approval issues.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on April 28, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals/groups.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to determine the validity of one of the appeals in light of Bill 185.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing until the issues list is finalized, and directed the parties to submit a finalized issues list and draft procedural order prior to the next Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to divide a large residential lot into four separate parcels for semi-detached dwellings.

The proposal involved creating three 'flagpole' lots with only 0.76 metres of street frontage, relying on a shared driveway and a Joint Use & Maintenance Agreement for access and servicing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed lots could not function independently or accommodate separate municipal services as required by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposal did not represent good planning and that a Zoning By-law Amendment for a Planned Unit Development would be the appropriate mechanism for such a shared-service development.

The appellants appealed the Township's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would rezone a severed portion of agricultural land to Rural Residential.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence from the Township's Manager of Planning, who had been summoned by the appellants, that the amendment did not conform to the applicable Official Plans and was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement because it would result in the loss of agricultural land and exceed the permitted number of severances.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and repealed the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of rental cabins and an accessory dwelling on a property formerly used as a fishing resort.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted a 'new development' or a 'redevelopment' under the County Official Plan, which prohibits new development on private roads.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was a new development, as the previous use ceased in the 1980s and all structures would be new.

Consequently, the proposed development on a private road did not conform to the County Official Plan, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by JRB Williams Enterprises Inc. against the Municipality of Brighton's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a 32-unit residential development.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming three-day video hearing scheduled for September 2024.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate a 13-lot subdivision.

The appellant appealed on the basis that the property falls within the Minimum Distance Separation formulae of an existing and planned dairy barn.

Following the dismissal of the Township's motion to dismiss the appeal, the Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties and scheduled a two-day Merit Hearing.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding a proposed plan of subdivision, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the subject lands were never surrendered to the Crown and remain reserve lands.

The parties informed the Tribunal of a conditional agreement for the MBQ to purchase the lands, which would result in the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal adjourned the motion to allow time for the sale to close or, alternatively, for the MBQ to serve Notices of a constitutional question on the Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario as required by the Tribunal's Rules.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a yacht club and four individuals on consent.

The parties agreed to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List by June 14, 2024, and a three-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on September 25, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the rescheduled hearing of appeals by the applicant concerning the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a development of 43 single detached dwellings and an apartment building.

The hearing was rescheduled to commence on September 11, 2024, for a duration of three days.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a proposed plan of subdivision, the Tribunal addressed competing motions from the appellant and the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte (MBQ).

MBQ raised a jurisdictional challenge based on an ongoing federal land claim encompassing the subject property.

The Tribunal converted the scheduled motion date to a CMC and ordered that MBQ's jurisdictional motion be heard first, as it forms the foundation of the appeal, with the appellant's motion to be scheduled subsequently.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan, several community groups and individuals requested party or participant status.

Applying the Oakville Factors and the requirements of the Planning Act, the Tribunal granted party status to four cottage and stakeholder associations, finding their involvement would assist in the effective adjudication of the issues without causing undue prejudice.

The Tribunal denied party status to two individuals, finding their concerns were either site-specific or better suited for participant status, and granted participant status to one of them.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment on the basis that the notice of appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellants, who operate a dairy farm, appealed the by-law due to concerns about Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements and potential conflicts with proposed residential lots.

The moving party argued MDS considerations did not apply because the subject lands were entirely within a Hamlet Designation.

The Tribunal found that the boundaries of the Hamlet Designation were unclear and presented a legitimately contested threshold question.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the notice of appeal disclosed requisite planning grounds and dismissed the motion.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the failure of the approval authority to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application.

The Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte were granted party status due to an ongoing land claim encompassing the subject property.

The Tribunal determined it was premature to schedule a merit hearing until a motion regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the land claim is heard and decided.

The appellant brought a motion claiming that its first demolition permit application remained valid because the municipality failed to make a decision within the statutory timelines under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the municipality had the authority to change its by-law to refuse the demolition permit.

The Tribunal also issued a procedural order and issues list for the upcoming merits hearing regarding the denial of the second demolition permit application.

The appellant appealed the Lakehead Regional Planning Board's refusal of two consent applications to create two new parcels from a 55-hectare property.

The Board had refused the applications on the basis that the Official Plan's growth management strategy capped new severances at 200, a limit that had already been reached.

The Tribunal found that the growth management strategy had expired in 2017 and no longer applied.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, granting provisional consent for the first severance as it complied with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the second severance because the Official Plan only permits one severance per parcel held as of June 1, 1997.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of rental cabins, a boathouse, and an accessory dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a three-day merit hearing.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order that its demolition permit application was deemed consented to under the Ontario Heritage Act because the Municipality failed to provide notice of its decision within the statutory 90-day period.

The Tribunal agreed that deemed consent occurred due to the lack of timely notice.

However, the Tribunal found that the Municipality possessed the authority under the Municipal Act to revoke the by-law associated with the demolition permit, effectively revoking the permit.

The motion was therefore dismissed.