John Douglas Ewart

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 Ontario Land Tribunal held a Telephone Conference Call to address appeals by Langmaid's Island Corporation and Mitchell Fasken concerning the Township of Lake of Bays' Community Planning Permit By-law and a draft Plan of Subdivision.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the site-specific appeal from the general appeal.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List for a four-day Merit Hearing scheduled to commence on April 9, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to address appeals concerning a proposed 36-lot residential development on Langmaid's Island and a related Community Planning Permit By-law.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the bifurcation of the applicant's site-specific appeal from a general appeal of the by-law.

The Tribunal also scheduled a four-day merit hearing to resolve the remaining site-specific issues, including the implementation of a prior Phase 1 decision and the placement of sleeping cabins.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a short-term rental within an existing accessory dwelling unit on a commercial property.

The Tribunal found that while the proposal had regard for provincial interests, it was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the District of Muskoka or Township of Lake of Bays Official Plans.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's planning evidence that converting the unit to a short-term rental would remove a long-term housing option, contrary to policies aimed at providing a diverse mix of attainable housing to support complete communities and the local tourism economy.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by BayCity Custom Homes against the Township of Ramara's refusal of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent applications.

The applications seek to permit two new residential lots via severances and a reduction in minimum lot frontage.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a four-day merit hearing to commence by video on July 9, 2024.

The appellant brought a motion for discovery seeking hydrogeological records, site plans, and a site visit related to a proposed quarry expansion.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, issuing a consent order requiring the applicant to provide specific documents and records by a set date, with each party bearing its own costs.

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law that approved the closing and sale of a shoreline road allowance to an abutting property owner.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction under various provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001 to review and deny the by-law.

The Tribunal found that it does not have free-standing jurisdiction to determine the validity or legality of a municipal by-law, nor does it have supervisory jurisdiction over a municipality's legislative competence or procedural fairness.

The Tribunal concluded that the proper forum to challenge the validity of the by-law is the Superior Court of Justice under section 273 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application to permit a permanent hot-mix asphalt plant and a future ready-mix concrete plant.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the County and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence demonstrating that the plant is appropriately separated from sensitive land uses and that potential impacts related to noise, dust, odour, and traffic can be adequately mitigated.

The appeal was allowed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a telephone conference call to clarify its previous decision regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a waterfront property in the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

The Tribunal amended a paragraph in its prior decision to clarify that a parking area may be positioned 'to within 50 feet of the lake'.

The Tribunal also directed the appellants to provide an existing plan of survey and set a deadline for the parties to provide an update and propose timelines for further deliverables.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal had previously approved the draft plan, but the appellant sought a redline revision.

The Tribunal directed a process whereby the proposed redline revision would be circulated by the approval authority.

If satisfied, the parties could request a revision to the Tribunal's order on consent; otherwise, a further Case Management Conference would be scheduled.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an existing small-scale shed within the shoreline setback on their seasonal recreational property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised amendment that defined the structure as a 'marine storage shed' and established specific regulations for its size and setbacks.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by the applicant following the municipality's non-decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a quarry operation.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence on May 6, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the Township's Community Planning Permit By-law No. 2021-111.

The parties presented a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence on March 25, 2024, and approved the Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an amendment to the County of Hastings Official Plan, which would permit the establishment of a quarry.

The parties were unable to reach a resolution.

The applicant and municipality requested a hearing in mid-April 2024, while the appellant requested a delay until late 2024 to complete necessary studies.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for April 2024, noting that the appellant had sufficient time since filing the appeal to prepare their case.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a quarry operation.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and numbered companies, and granted party status to an incorporated citizens' group.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality for failing to approve a Site Plan agreement.

The parties requested a two-day hearing to resolve outstanding urban design and sanitary design issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted travel and tent trailers on Rural, Shoreline Residential, and Limited Surface Residential properties with a reduced minimum lot area of 1 acre.

The appellants argued the amendment lacked proper environmental impact studies and did not conform to the Official Plan or Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's planning evidence, finding that the amendment did not create new lots or intensify land use, and that appropriate restrictions were in place to prevent negative impacts on water quality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a circular driveway in the front yard.

The proposed driveway required variances for front yard landscaping and multiple access points.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, noting the design would preserve an existing city tree and manage stormwater effectively.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved.

The appellant appealed the failure of the approval authority to make a decision on a draft Plan of Subdivision and related planning instruments to permit a 32-lot seasonal residential development on Langmaid's Island.

Following a Phase 1 hearing that established the principle of development, the parties reached a settlement on the draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed subdivision and conditions have regard to provincial interests, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal approved the draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.

The appellant, an area livestock farmer, appealed a municipal decision approving a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted three new residential lots on a former gravel extraction site.

The central issue was whether the proposed development constituted a Type A or Type B land use under the Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) I guidelines, which would determine the required setback from the appellant's livestock barns.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's summoned expert from OMAFRA, finding that the proposed use constituted a Type B use because the lots remained in immediate proximity to existing non-agricultural uses, despite the introduction of an open space buffer.

As a Type B use, the development fell within the required 637-metre setback, rendering the amendment inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and non-conformant with the Growth Plan and municipal official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the by-law repealed.