Katryna Vergis-Mayo

The applicants appealed the Township of Georgian Bay's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Consent applications to sever a shoreline property into three residential lots.

The Township and an adjacent property owner opposed the applications, arguing they would negatively impact the character of the area and create boating safety hazards in a narrow waterbody.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed lot creation was compatible with the evolving character of the neighbourhood and that the addition of two docks would not impact navigability or congestion in the channel.

The Tribunal held that the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest and the criteria under the Planning Act.

The appellants operated a wedding venue on their property without obtaining building permits or proper zoning.

The Township issued an Unsafe Order and subsequently Orders Prohibiting Occupancy under the Building Code Act, citing the lack of a building permit.

The appellants appealed the Orders Prohibiting Occupancy.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal and rescinded the orders, finding that the absence of a building permit does not, on its own, constitute an 'unsafe' condition under s. 15.9(2) of the Act, and the Township committed a palpable and overriding error by using the orders for a collateral purpose.

The applicants appealed the refusal of the County of Oxford and the Township of Blandford-Blenheim to approve an official plan amendment and a zoning by-law amendment to permit a seasonal special events facility on agricultural lands.

The central issue was whether the facility qualified as an on-farm diversified use under the Provincial Planning Statement and Guideline 851.

The Tribunal found that the facility met the criteria for an on-farm diversified use, as it was located on a farm, secondary to the principal agricultural use, limited in area, and compatible with surrounding agricultural operations.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments, concluding they were consistent with provincial policy and represented good land use planning.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 139, raising concerns about land use compatibility with its existing industrial operations.

The parties reached a settlement that included updated policy language requiring land use compatibility studies, noise mitigation measures, and holding provisions until noise reports confirm appropriate designations.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed to approve the settlement.

The City of Burlington requested a review of a Tribunal decision that refused to dismiss an appeal of the new City Official Plan.

The original decision held that the appeal survived the sale of the subject property because it was 'tied to the land', and directed the City to contact the new owner.

The Tribunal Chair granted the request for review, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Chair held that while Tribunal decisions regarding permitted land uses run with the land (in rem), the right to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal is a personal right (in personam).

The original decision was varied to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The City of Brampton brought a motion for directions seeking approval of modifications to its new Official Plan to resolve multiple appeals.

The Tribunal found that the proposed modifications and unmodified policies had regard for matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Greenbelt Plan and the Region of Peel Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion, approving the modifications and unmodified policies without prejudice to the remaining outstanding appeals.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day Hearing on the Merits for the remaining appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 778.

One appellant withdrew its appeal, and another anticipated a resolution with the City.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a corrective order under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend a previous Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The correction fixed a typographical error in the spelling of counsel's name for Home Depot of Canada Inc. from Noah Jorden to Noah Gordon.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for Major Transit Station Areas and the new City Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to 201 County Court Brampton Holdings Inc. on consent.

The parties reported progress in mediation and proposed a written settlement motion once a draft order is finalized.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2026 to address outstanding matters and potential consolidation of the appeals.

The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment pertaining to the Avenues Policy Framework.

The parties requested additional time to engage in without prejudice communications to refine the issues and finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference and imposed a deadline for the submission of the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the township and county for failing to adopt an Official Plan amendment and a Zoning By-law amendment.

The amendments were requested to permit a special events facility on agricultural lands.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on January 19, 2026, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Regional Municipality of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against OPA 119 and ZBL 418.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Canadian National Railway Company, substituted Inaria Burlington Inc. for Burlington Healthcare Centre Inc., and scheduled a motion hearing to consider dismissing certain appeals and addressing potential settlements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 778 (Avenues Policy Framework).

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association and Group.

On consent, the Tribunal confirmed that the unappealed portions of OPA 778 came into force and effect on March 14, 2025, pursuant to s. 17(27) of the Planning Act.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled.

Several property owners brought motions seeking party status and orders pursuant to subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act to deem Zoning By-law No. 608-2024 in force for their respective properties.

The by-law, along with Official Plan Amendment No. 727, was adopted by the City of Toronto to permit gentle residential intensification along major streets but was appealed city-wide by 2856973 Ontario Inc. Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that scoping the appeals to exclude the moving parties' lands would not create conformity issues and would facilitate timely redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted the motions, deemed the by-law in force for the specified properties, and permitted the moving parties to withdraw from the proceedings.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 778, which updates the Avenues Policy Framework.

The Tribunal granted party status to 430 Royal York GP Inc. to scope the appeals concerning its property.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a participant status request, receive status updates, and potentially hear scoping motions.

This was a status hearing regarding multiple appeals against the Region of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 119 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal deferred a party status request from Canadian National Railway Company to the next Case Management Conference to allow parties time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 16, 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to facilitate a mixed-use high-rise development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for two towers of 36 and 41 storeys.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final orders withheld pending the submission of final instruments and a Transportation Demand Management agreement.

A Case Management Conference was held to prepare for a merit hearing regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the construction of three residential towers.

The parties advised that discussions are ongoing to reduce the issues on the Issues List.

The Tribunal issued directions for the parties to continue their discussions and follow the procedural order steps.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of 19 row dwelling units.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.