Kim Mullin

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Kitchener's Parkland Conveyance By-law No. 2022-101.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and scoped Issues List on consent.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day hearing of the merits to commence on August 26, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2623841 Ontario Inc. and MLB Holdings Ltd. against the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to Paris Grand Estates Inc. on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the County time to review the applicant's intended resubmission.

The appellant appealed the City's Parkland Dedication By-law under s. 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were awaiting provincial regulations under the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 regarding parkland dedication requirements for encumbered lands.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide an update by June 14, 2024, and took no further action in the interim.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Lafarge Canada Inc. against a zoning by-law amendment approved by the Town of Collingwood.

The amendment facilitates a residential subdivision on lands adjacent to the appellant's concrete plant.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Simcoe County District School Board on consent.

As the parties were optimistic about reaching a settlement, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to either review a settlement or establish a procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment approved by the City of London to permit a development of three mixed-use buildings.

The parties resolved outstanding issues regarding the Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 7-day video hearing for May 2024.

The applicants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The amendments were intended to facilitate the development of two apartment buildings with up to 193 units and a municipal stormwater management pond.

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

Based on uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments, as modified by the settlement, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modified amendments.

The Tribunal convened a status hearing regarding the referral of the Minister's proposed transfer of two aggregate licences.

The proposed transferee requested direction on whether the parties' experts were required to meet at the subject lands to prepare a Statement of Agreed Facts.

The Tribunal declined to compel the parties to meet on the lands.

The appellant raised concerns about a late-filed witness statement from the proposed transferee that improperly included a confidential, without-prejudice settlement offer.

The Tribunal ordered the proposed transferee to file a revised witness statement removing the confidential letter and any references to it, and accepted the revised statement as reply evidence.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an addition, an additional residential unit, and a commercial marina facility on their property abutting Kettle Creek.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised amendment.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment had appropriate regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding natural hazards, conformed with the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised amendment.

The Tribunal convened a status hearing regarding the proposed transfer of two aggregate licences from the appellant to the property owner.

The appellant requested the Tribunal direct the Ministry to rescind the proposed transfer and cancel the upcoming hearing, arguing that the property owner's correspondence indicated it would no longer accept the transfer.

At the hearing, the property owner clarified that it still wished to proceed with the transfer and the hearing to pursue its claim for compensation.

The Tribunal confirmed the hearing would proceed as scheduled and made no determination on its jurisdiction to award compensation at this stage.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3000-unit mixed-use community redevelopment.

The parties reached a full settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended planning instruments.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's Parkland Dedication By-law No. 62-2022 under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

At the Case Management Conference, the City advised that it was preparing a new Parkland Dedication By-law expected to be presented to City Council in July 2023, which may address the appellants' concerns.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 8, 2023, to update the Tribunal on the status of the new by-law and settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and an Aggregate Resources Act license to permit the expansion of an existing quarry.

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

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed expansion was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and had appropriate regard for provincial interests.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the amendments and directing the issuance of the license in accordance with the minutes of settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a concurrent Case Management Conference for two separate proceedings concerning the transfer of aggregate licences under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal determined that, due to common jurisdictional and legal issues regarding financial compensation for licence transfers, both proceedings should be heard by a common panel to avoid inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal issued procedural orders and scheduled the hearings for November 2023 and February 2024.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and a referred aggregate licence application, to permit a quarry expansion.

The Tribunal addressed requests from several unrepresented objectors to revert from party status to participant status.

The Tribunal granted the requests, extended the deadline for participant statements, and scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

The applicant brought a second motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of aggregate licence transfers without a hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was barred by issue estoppel and res judicata as it raised substantially the same issues as a previously dismissed motion.

The Tribunal also permitted an unlicensed representative to act for the applicant under an exception to Law Society By-law 4, and directed that further case management be scheduled concurrently with another proceeding raising similar jurisdictional issues regarding financial compensation under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend several dates in the Procedural Order for appeals concerning a proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of two 5-storey apartment buildings.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1571145 Ontario Limited and Jim Graham against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The amendments would facilitate the development of two 5-storey apartment buildings.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals be heard together rather than consolidated, scheduled a five-day video hearing, and approved a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and an application for an aggregate extraction Class 'A' license for an existing quarry.

The Tribunal granted party status to a former participant, approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a ten-day hearing.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on their zoning by-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development in the Port Lands.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties agreed that the appeals should proceed now that the Port Lands Official Plan Modification is largely in force.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for March 2023 to allow the applicants to provide updated materials to the City for review.

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.