Laura Dean

The Township brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a non-decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The appellant sought to permit a cottage on a lot with significant natural features and private road access.

The Township argued the application was never deemed complete because the appellant refused to provide required supporting studies, including environmental, servicing, and stormwater management reports.

The Tribunal found the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and disclosed no land use planning grounds, as there was insufficient information to evaluate the proposal against provincial and municipal planning policies.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a kennel as a home industry in an existing agricultural barn to house 13 personal dogs.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed use was generally consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement as an 'other rural land use', it did not conform to the County Official Plan due to the barn's proximity to a neighbouring residence and the potential for adverse noise impacts.

Furthermore, the proposal was not consistent with the intent of the Township's Zoning By-law, which explicitly prohibits kennels and defines them as commercial enterprises.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference for an appeal against the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a single detached dwelling.

The Township indicated its intent to bring a motion to dismiss the appeal for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day motion hearing to be held by video.

The applicant, a prospective municipal election candidate, brought an urgent motion for an interlocutory injunction staying a Notice of Trespass issued by the respondent Township following a protest she organized.

The Notice barred her from municipal properties, which would prevent her from filing her election nomination in person.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue regarding her freedom of expression, irreparable harm to her electoral participation and reputation, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant given the lack of evidence of misbehaviour.

The court granted the injunction and directed the Township to take no further steps against the applicant under its Citizen Code of Conduct pending the main application.

The applicant board applied for an inquiry alleging that a city councillor contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and the municipal Code of Conduct by participating in and voting on a motion regarding the governance of a non-profit housing corporation where he was employed as Executive Director.

The Integrity Commissioner found that the motion, which called for mediation and potential legal remedies to restore municipal oversight, did not affect a real, present, and definable pecuniary interest of either the corporation or the councillor.

The Commissioner also found that the councillor did not use the influence of his office for a private advantage.

The application and complaint were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan regarding short-term rental (STR) policies.

The parties reached a settlement to replace the STR policies and mapping.

The Tribunal found the revised policies represented good planning and approved them.

However, the Tribunal denied the parties' request to withhold the Final Order until a site-specific zoning by-law amendment for certain appellants was processed, finding that delaying a Township-wide policy for a private agreement was not in the public interest.

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a sunroom addition with reduced interior side yard and rear yard setbacks.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to revised variance parameters.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the revised variances were authorized, subject to obtaining approval from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

The appellant appealed the Town of Cobourg Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances required to construct a coach house dwelling in the rear yard of the subject property.

The requested variances sought relief from maximum lot coverage and minimum lot frontage requirements.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is an appropriate form of residential intensification that conforms to the applicable official plans and zoning by-law.

The Tribunal found that the variances satisfy the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized the variances.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to legalize the limited residential use (office, multi-purpose space, and sanitary facilities) of the second-storey loft of an existing detached garage on a waterfront property.

The municipality argued the use constituted a dwelling unit and would negatively impact the at-capacity Lake Trout Lake.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed use did not include bedrooms or kitchens, the existing septic system was adequate, and the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appellant appealed the Township of King Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a two-storey backyard accessory structure.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement modifying the requested building height variance and adding conditions.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the County's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 23, which redesignated prime agricultural lands to Major Open Space, permitting non-agricultural uses.

The parties reached a settlement to revert approximately 1,350 hectares back to the Agricultural Resource Lands designation and remove associated policy wording.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the settlement modifications are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, conform with the County Official Plan, and represent good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended OPA 23.

The applicant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a 2-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to the front and rear yard setbacks, an increase in lot coverage, and an increase in rear yard projection.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, finding that the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and did not create undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

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

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Following a settlement between one appellant and the Town, the parties sought approval of minor amendments to clarify the by-law's language regarding the timing of land value assessments and the definition of development, aligning it with sections 41 and 42(6.4) of the Act.

The Tribunal approved the amendments on consent, resolving that appellant's appeal, while the appeals of the other parties remain ongoing.

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a minor variance to change the minimum setback from a front lot line for an accessory building.

The appellant sought to convert an existing dwelling into an accessory building located closer to the street than the front wall of the new primary dwelling.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence provided by the Town, the Tribunal found that the variance satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), Distrikt Developments, and Silwell Developments Limited against the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law.

The Town and BILD agreed to schedule a motion hearing to address a threshold jurisdictional issue regarding BILD's requested relief for expanded parkland credits.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion hearing for November 28, 2024, and set a timetable for the exchange of motion materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan.

At a previous CMC, the parties had agreed that the Oro-Medonte Association of Responsible STRs' appeal was deemed dismissed by the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (Bill 185).

However, the Association subsequently argued that its appeal was saved by a transition provision in the Planning Act, because other valid appeals had been filed in respect of the same plan.

The Tribunal agreed with the Association's interpretation of s. 17(24.0.2)(b) of the Planning Act, finding that the Association's appeal was not deemed dismissed and that it maintained its full rights as an appellant party.

The Tribunal also declined to approve a settlement between the Township and other appellants at this stage, directing the parties to provide a status update.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 103-unit residential development with ground floor commercial space.

The Town opposed the development primarily on the basis of density and height.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and York Region Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed, subject to a holding provision regarding servicing allocation.

Crystal Homes brought a motion to dismiss the Credit Valley Residents Association's appeal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appeal disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds, was frivolous, and had no reasonable prospect of success, as the relevant by-laws were already in effect and not properly appealed.

The appellant's representative supported the motion.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal against the Crystal Homes site.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of rental cabins and an accessory dwelling on a property formerly used as a fishing resort.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted a 'new development' or a 'redevelopment' under the County Official Plan, which prohibits new development on private roads.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was a new development, as the previous use ceased in the 1980s and all structures would be new.

Consequently, the proposed development on a private road did not conform to the County Official Plan, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan.

Following the enactment of Bill 185, the appeal by the Oro-Medonte Association of Responsible STRs was dismissed.

The Association requested that a member be substituted as an appellant, which the Tribunal denied as the appeal period had lapsed.

However, the Tribunal permitted the submission of a Party Status Request to be added as a party sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal also approved the Issues List and scheduled a third Case Management Conference to address potential settlement.