Kim Mullin

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 and Zoning By-law 702-2024, which regulate development on Ookwemin Minising (formerly Villiers Island) in Toronto's Port Lands.

The modifications address building heights, density, land uses, and meanwhile uses.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with the applicable Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions to settle several appeals regarding site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment 59.

The settlements proposed expanding settlement area boundaries and converting employment lands to residential and commercial uses.

Sifton Properties Limited contested the settlements, arguing that a quantitative land needs assessment was required under the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 prior to approval.

The Tribunal found that the PPS 2024 removed the requirement for a municipal comprehensive review for boundary expansions, allowing for incremental expansions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and supportive of providing local housing options.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for four distinct appeals relating to proposed expansions of the Fergus Urban Centre boundary in the Township of Centre Wellington.

The parties agreed to a phased hearing approach, with Phase 1 addressing overarching population forecasts and land needs assessments, and Phase 2 addressing site-specific issues.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together for Phase 1 and granted party status to several requesting entities, including the appellants in each other's appeals, adjacent landowners, and the local school board.

A 14-day hearing was scheduled for Phase 1.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by Gemini Urban Design (W) Corporation concerning the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The appeals relate to a proposed development of a back-to-back townhouse block and underground parking garage.

The Tribunal scheduled a 7-day video hearing to commence on June 22, 2026, and established the issues list and procedural dates for the exchange of evidence.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to have five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals (Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc., Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc., and Whitechurch Landowners Group Inc.) heard together.

The parties consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard at the commencement of the previously scheduled Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the first scheduled merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the hearing of five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the common issues together was appropriate to ensure consistent adjudication and efficiency without prejudicing the individual site-specific hearings.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 59.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed policy revisions regarding residential density and Special Policy Area #29-A are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conform to the County Official Plan, and represent good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-unit townhouse development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on consent, noting its regulatory role regarding natural hazards.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a seven-day merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the expansion of an existing sand and gravel pit.

The parties reached a settlement involving a revised Zoning By-law Amendment that limits the pit extension to a load and haul operation.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment has regard to matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised by-law was approved.

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 applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Severn and the County of Simcoe to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a proposed mixed residential neighbourhood.

The parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised instruments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the applicable Official Plans, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised Draft Plan, Conditions, and Zoning By-law Amendment.

A status Case Management Conference was held regarding the remaining appeals against the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The City provided updates on settlement discussions concerning various issue-specific and site-specific appeals, including those related to propane storage, school boards, parking, cemeteries, and places of worship.

The Tribunal scheduled a further one-day CMC for December 3, 2025, and directed the City to provide a written status update and an updated tracking chart of remaining appeals by November 26, 2025.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion on consent for an order under s. 34(31) of the Planning Act to bring into force the un-appealed portions of its Protected Major Transit Station Areas By-law.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that partial approval would streamline development and provide housing more quickly.

The motion was granted, and the by-law was deemed in force as of its passing date, save for the specific properties subject to the appeals.

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 appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's Interim Control By-law (ICBL) and its subsequent extension, which temporarily prohibited new gravel pits and quarries on certain lands to allow the Town to review and update its aggregate resource policies.

The appellant, who sought to develop an aggregate operation on affected lands, argued the ICBL was unnecessary, improperly motivated to thwart its application, and failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for ICBLs and found that the Town strictly complied with section 38 of the Planning Act, substantiated a valid planning rationale for the policy review, ensured conformity with the Official Plan, and conducted the review fairly and expeditiously within the statutory timeframe.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 4, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to correct the spelling of counsel Diana Doracin's name in the appearances list.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicants concerning the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on October 20, 2025, for 20 days.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer two aggregate licences from the appellant to the respondent landowner after their extraction agreement expired.

The appellant objected, seeking $518,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licences, and the matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to direct financial compensation as a condition of a licence transfer under s. 18(8) of the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal held that resolving contractual disputes and claims for economic loss between a landowner and a licence holder is outside its mandate.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer of the licences to the respondent.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.