Jessica De Marinis

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 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 applicant appealed the non-decisions of the Township of Perth East and the County of Perth regarding applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 24-unit residential development.

At an uncontested hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed development represents gentle intensification, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the revised draft instruments subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Brantford's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a medical clinic.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant following the municipalities' failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The municipalities did not properly attend or participate in the CMC.

Following the CMC, both municipalities confirmed they would not participate, making the appeals uncontested.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together at a one-day video hearing.

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 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 appealed a condition of approval for a draft plan of condominium that required cash-in-lieu of parkland for three additional lots.

The appellant argued this amounted to 'double dipping' because parkland dedication was already satisfied when the original subdivision was approved in 1987.

The Township argued the condition was authorized under s. 51.1 of the Planning Act and was reasonable due to increased density.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development did not contemplate a higher density than the previously developed portion of the original subdivision and that cash-in-lieu had already been provided.

The Tribunal concluded the condition was not reasonable and ordered it removed.

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 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 appellant appealed the conditions of approval for a consent to sever a property to develop a new detached dwelling.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties resolved their issues and requested to convert the hearing into a Case Management Conference to schedule a written hearing.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner concerned about slope stability and scheduled a written hearing for October 2, 2025.

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 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 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 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 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 applicants appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit increased lot coverage for a new two-storey residential dwelling.

At the Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal noted that the matter had already been set for a written settlement hearing and no further order was required.