Laura McFalls

The applicant appealed the City of London's refusal of a Zoning By-Law Amendment application to facilitate the development of three 14-storey apartment buildings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered status requests from three neighbouring property owners.

After clarifying the roles of parties and participants, all three individuals requested and were granted participant status on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing and approved the Procedural Order.

A status conference was held regarding an expropriation compensation claim.

The claimant sought to maintain the scheduled hearing dates despite incomplete preparations and outstanding disclosure.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing dates be maintained, added two additional days to the schedule, and established a timeline for pre-hearing events including the exchange of witness statements and joint document books.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of applications to amend the Zoning By-law and Official Plan for a proposed townhouse development.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties and scheduled a six-day merit hearing for October 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a status conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties, scheduling a seven-day video hearing to commence on May 19, 2026, and setting out the procedural steps and deadlines leading up to the hearing.

The applicant appealed the non-decision of its Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit residential development in Ingersoll.

The parties reached a settlement on most issues, leaving only the appropriate parking rate for two proposed apartment buildings in dispute.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's transportation expert evidence, finding that the proposed parking rate of 1.19 spaces per unit was optimal given the site's walkability and bikeability.

The appeals were allowed in part and the planning instruments were approved.

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Chatham-Kent's Development Charges By-law No. 148-2022 under section 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised development charge rates to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert evidence that the revised rates conformed with the Act and did not increase the amounts payable, the Tribunal approved the settlement and ordered the by-law amended accordingly.

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement or an ancillary right to park on a private road (Hunters Road) owned by the respondent, which they used to access their cottages.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to establish the elements for a prescriptive easement, specifically that their use was "peaceful" and "uninterrupted" for the requisite 20-year period due to the respondent's consistent objections.

Furthermore, the court found that parking on Hunters Road was not "reasonably necessary" for the enjoyment of their properties, as their respective title documents provided for alternative parking solutions.

The appellant appealed the failure of the municipality and county to make decisions on a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision, as well as the passage of a comprehensive Zoning By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting a proposed residential development of 522-714 units.

The Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

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 Appellants appealed the Town of Petrolia's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit residential development within a 10-hectare significant woodlot.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's forestry and species at risk studies did not constitute a complete Environmental Impact Study (EIS) as required by the Provincial Policy Statement, County Official Plan, and Town Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and refused the amendments, concluding that a full EIS demonstrating no negative impacts on natural features or ecological functions is required before development can be considered.