John Douglas Ewart

The Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes Official Plan.

The parties disputed the contents of the Issues List.

The Appellants sought to include policies related to aggregates, rural and resource management, transportation, and water, arguing the Provincial Planning Statement must be read in its entirety.

The District and added parties argued the Issues List should be restricted to issues specifically named in the Notices of Appeal, consistent with a prior Tribunal order.

The Tribunal agreed with the District, finding its Issues List best complied with the prior order and provided a fair and just process.

A 13-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for February 2027, and a Procedural Order was issued.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a second single detached dwelling for temporary accommodation on a property in the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The applicant claimed the new structure was a continuation of a legal non-conforming use of a former drive shed as an airplane hangar with temporary living accommodations.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the residential use lawfully existed on November 15, 2001, as required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Township Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the new structure was a second residential dwelling, which is not permitted, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a consent application and its failure to make a decision on a related zoning by-law amendment.

The proposal sought to create a new rural residential lot and a retained lot with no direct road frontage, relying instead on an existing registered driveway easement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, accepting uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal conforms to the intent of the Official Plans, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represents good planning because the existing access arrangement will continue with no new functional impacts.

The Lake Associations brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by Our Muskoka, Miller Paving, and Elizabeth Lippa against the District's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the plan was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or failed to conform with the District Official Plan, as required by s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion, dismissing Our Muskoka's appeal entirely for lacking the mandatory explanations and land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal also dismissed the Miller Paving and Lippa appeals in part, scoping them to remove broad claims of non-conformity that lacked specific policy references.

The municipality brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) on the basis that the appellant failed to make oral or written submissions prior to the OPA's adoption, as required by s. 17(36) of the Planning Act.

The appellant argued that a 1996 letter objecting to a substantially similar earlier OPA on the same property satisfied the requirement, as the statute does not explicitly impose a temporal deadline or require submissions to be directed at the specific OPA under appeal.

The Tribunal found the statutory language ambiguous and, applying principles of statutory interpretation, resolved the ambiguity in favour of preserving the appellant's right of appeal.

The municipality's motion to dismiss was denied.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to recognize existing structures and reduce the minimum setback for a sewage treatment system on a shoreline property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment, which establishes a building envelope for a new cottage and specifies the sewage disposal area, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

The appellant appealed a condition of provisional consent requiring cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication equal to 5% of the appraised value of the retained parcel.

The appellant argued the condition exceeded the requirements of the Planning Act and proposed an alternative valuation based only on the 5% land area otherwise required to be conveyed.

The Tribunal found the municipality's condition was appropriate, reflected established practice for determining cash-in-lieu payments, and conformed to the Planning Act and municipal official plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss appeals of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan filed by the responding parties.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the Official Plan was inconsistent with provincial policy or failed to conform to the District Official Plan, and failed to disclose apparent land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the alleged lack of conformity and inconsistency were not clearly identified or explained in the original notices of appeal as required by the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals without a hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a hobby farm on an undersized lot and to revise the definition of a hobby farm to be based on nutrient units rather than a strict animal count.

The Township argued the proposal amounted to a commercial farming operation unsuitable for the constrained rural lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the applicant's expert evidence that the proposal remains small-scale, complies with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies encouraging rural agricultural uses and local food systems.

The appellants appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on their zoning by-law amendment application to permit the replacement and redevelopment of an existing waterfront dwelling and garage.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the County Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its April 8, 2025 decision regarding a minor variance appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 73 of the original decision was replaced to clarify that issues regarding stormwater management, building codes, and property maintenance will be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit two existing shoreline gazebos that did not comply with shoreline setback, maximum floor area, and maximum height requirements.

The Tribunal heard expert evidence on stormwater management and land use planning.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellants' planner, finding that the gazebos' open design and location minimized impacts on natural vegetation and allowed them to co-exist in harmony with the surrounding settings.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The Tribunal convened a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, with the Township alleging that certain issues raised by the appellants did not comply with the Planning Act regarding consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformity with the District Official Plan.

The appellants argued that a motion on the validity of the Issues List would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to address these disputes and directed the provision of updated policy changes.

The appellant appealed the Township of Ramara Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances for a proposed four-storey mixed-use building.

The requested variances included reductions in required parking spaces, parking space dimensions, interior side yard setbacks, and landscaped open space.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence that the proposal represents an efficient use of land, provides adequate parking based on shared use, and that site-specific issues would be addressed during site plan approval.

The District Municipality of Muskoka appealed the Township of Lake of Bays' approval of a consent application for a lot severance.

The parties reached a settlement proposing revised conditions to address the District's concerns regarding road widenings and access.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed consent and revised conditions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to grant provisional consent subject to the revised conditions.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to recognize a retaining wall within a shoreline buffer and conditionally approving a variance for a floating dock.

The Tribunal found that the retaining wall functioned as a permitted flood and erosion control facility rather than a hard landscaping amenity.

The Tribunal authorized both variances, concluding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions reducing the retaining wall's height and implementing a landscape plan.

The moving party, affiliated with Langmaids Island Corporation, brought a motion requesting an order that the 'Waterfront Landing' use defined in the Town of Huntsville's Community Planning Permit By-law does not prohibit construction access and commercial barging activities at its property.

The Town argued that the lack of a dedicated loading area prohibited such activities as it would obstruct required parking.

The Tribunal found that a plain reading of the by-law does not prohibit these activities and granted the motion in part.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the municipality following a successful appeal of the municipality's refusal of zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The applicant argued the municipality's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious because it failed to lead evidence supporting its refusal, filed its planner's witness statement late, and introduced a new issue not on the issues list.

Furthermore, the municipality sought to recover its own legal costs from the applicant pursuant to a Cost Acknowledgement Agreement.

The Tribunal found the municipality's conduct unreasonable and frivolous, noting its disregard for the procedural order and failure to justify the council's decision.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,500.

The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties disputed whether certain issues on the draft Issues List complied with the statutory requirements of s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to engage in further discussions and explore Tribunal-led mediation to resolve the Issues List.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing regarding Mineral Aggregate Resource Policies until the Issues List is finalized.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the City's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

Following the enactment of Bill 185, which restricted appeal rights, the Tribunal initially advised it no longer had jurisdiction.

The appellant brought a motion arguing it qualified as a 'specified person' under the amended Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the appellant, as the holder of an Environmental Compliance Approval for a nearby property, met the definition of a 'specified person' because its appeal was based on inconsistency with the Provincial Policy Statement's land use compatibility policies.

The Tribunal ruled the appeals could proceed but were limited in scope to those compatibility policies.

A further motion was directed to determine if the appellant made the requisite written submissions to council prior to the OPA's enactment.