Jonathan Minnes

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion for directions to declare unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan) in force and effect.

The appellants had agreed to scope their appeals on a site-specific or area-specific basis.

Sorge Enterprises Inc., a non-appellant party sheltering under the appellants' issues, opposed the motion, arguing that the appeals should not be scoped and the broader Environmental Protection Designation should remain under appeal for all lands.

The Tribunal granted the Town's motion, finding that a non-appellant sheltering party has no right to craft issues or dictate the scope of appeals, which is the prerogative of the actual appellants.

The unappealed portions of the OPA were declared in force and effect.

The property owner requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding the City of Kenora's proposed expropriation of the Kenricia Hotel for community improvement and heritage rehabilitation.

The owner argued the expropriation was unnecessary and that they were willing to collaborate on restoration.

The Tribunal found that the City's objectives were clear and legitimate, and that in the absence of any definite alternative plan from the owner after 20 years, the expropriation was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's goals.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment, Sorge Enterprises Inc. brought a motion seeking to invalidate the County's Notice of Decision and to be added as an appellant despite filing its appeal out of time.

Sorge argued the Notice was deficient for failing to explicitly list registered owners as having appeal rights.

The Tribunal found the Notice of Decision met all prescribed regulatory requirements and was valid.

Consequently, Sorge's appeal was out of time, and the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory appeal period.

Sorge's request to be added as an appellant was denied, but it was granted non-appellant party status on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and issued a Procedural Order governing the procedures leading up to a hearing for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued an Amended Procedural Order to revise the procedural timelines.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing for a determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing May 4, 2026.

The order sets out the schedule for pleadings, discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The claimants brought a motion to compel the respondent City to answer questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The questions related to offers made by the City in 2018 to purchase the expropriated property and a neighbouring property.

The Tribunal found that questions regarding the expropriated property were relevant to determining market value and were not protected by settlement or litigation privilege.

Questions regarding the neighbouring property were deemed irrelevant.

The City was ordered to produce appraisal reports and related correspondence concerning the 2018 offer for the expropriated property.

The City of Waterloo brought a motion to vacate the scheduled hearing dates for an expropriation compensation claim and adjourn the proceeding pending the determination of a related Superior Court civil action.

The civil action concerned a prior planning settlement and whether the claimants were obliged to convey a portion of the expropriated lands to the City.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act and that the title issues raised in the civil action are irrelevant to the expropriation proceeding, as the City acquired full fee simple interest in the entire property through the expropriation.

The Tribunal concluded that the expropriation proceeding can proceed concurrently with the civil action.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Sarnia's Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The Tribunal directed the parties to continue mediation efforts and submit a draft final Procedural Order and Issues List by January 24, 2025.

A 12-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriation Act, the respondent municipality requested that the scheduled hearing dates be vacated pending the resolution of a related civil action concerning title to the expropriated property.

The claimants opposed the request, arguing it would cause prejudice and that the civil action lacked merit.

The Tribunal found that the request raised a jurisdictional question regarding title that could not be adequately addressed without a formal motion.

The Tribunal directed the parties to bring a motion in writing to determine whether it had jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing as scheduled.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the County of Lambton's decision to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 3, adopted by the City of Sarnia.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents on consent.

The parties agreed to participate in a scoping exercise to identify the specific sections and schedules of the OPA under appeal.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 28, 2024, to provide an update on the scoping exercise and to schedule a hearing date.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding a claim for land compensation arising from the expropriation of parts of a property by Metrolinx for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

The parties advised they intended to file further amended pleadings and provided a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing for November 2025.

The appellant appealed a municipally initiated comprehensive zoning by-law amendment that introduced a new Natural Environment zone on his properties, arguing it did not permit ongoing agricultural uses.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to apply only to the appellant's properties.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal scoped accordingly and deemed the unappealed portions of the zoning by-law to have come into force on the day it was passed, pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered appeals by Cytec Canada Inc. and 2610832 Ontario Inc. regarding the City of Niagara Falls' By-law 2023-078 and Official Plan Amendment 147, which relate to the conversion of employment lands.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together sequentially in a three-phase hearing and scheduled dates for potential motions and the merits hearing.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal of a consent application to sever a parcel for a new residential dwelling.

At a Case Management Conference, the applicants brought a motion for discovery to compel an adjacent property owner to allow a site visit to assess a structure that allegedly triggers Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements.

The motion did not proceed as the adjacent owner consented to the site visit on the condition that the County's planner also attend.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two sets of neighbours and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed the Region of Niagara's decision to approve, with modifications, the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan Amendment No. 147 (OPA 147), which addresses the conversion of Employment Lands.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered and granted several requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate on a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to coincide with a related zoning by-law appeal.

The Tribunal considered a request for partial approval of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (OPA 79), which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

Following mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resulting in modifications to OPA 79.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified OPA 79 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and partially approved the modified OPA 79, while preserving the rights of the remaining appellants for a future merit hearing.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The parties reported substantial progress in settlement discussions and requested a partial Settlement Hearing.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a partial Settlement Hearing for January 25, 2024.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 21 Broadview Avenue Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed 12-storey mixed-use building and 15 townhouses.

The Tribunal granted participant status to an adjacent property owner on consent, approved the updated Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence on June 10, 2024.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of minor variances and non-decision on site plan approval, as well as a town-initiated official plan amendment and zoning by-law, to permit a two-storey addition to a residential dwelling in the Grimsby Beach area.

The parties reached a settlement involving a revised site plan and a site-specific zoning by-law amendment.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development met all legislative tests, respected the area's cultural heritage, and constituted good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit to establish independent access to a residential property.

The appellant, a neighbour, sought to be kept informed of the development process rather than prohibit it.

The Hearing Officer scheduled a two-day hearing and directed the parties to attempt settlement, failing which a Procedural Order must be filed.