Laura Robinson

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to replace an existing seasonal cottage with a four-season cottage.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the amendment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposed development represents good land use planning, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appellant appealed the township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

Prior to the scheduled merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement in principle.

The Tribunal converted the merit hearing to a status hearing and scheduled a written settlement hearing.

The Tribunal also directed that a participant's document be included in their participant statement and that an addendum to a witness statement be removed from the record on consent.

Following a decision ordering a rehearing on compensation for an expropriated property, the Tribunal held a case management conference to determine the scope of the rehearing.

The claimants argued that the rehearing should include the issue of highest and best use, while the respondent city argued the Tribunal was functus officio on that issue.

The Tribunal rejected the city's argument, finding that it retained broad discretionary authority under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act and its Rules to conduct a full or partial rehearing.

The Tribunal ordered that the rehearing include written and oral evidence concerning the highest and best use of the subject property to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tay Valley's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the demolition of a cottage and construction of a year-round dwelling.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

A two-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for November 2025.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the demolition of a cottage and construction of a year-round dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant requested that hearing dates be scheduled immediately, while the Township requested a second CMC to allow time to secure a planning witness.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for four weeks later to balance the applicant's desire to proceed with the Township's need to identify its witness and finalize the issues list.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a consent and zoning by-law amendment application to create a new rural residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a revised wetland buffer and a reduced minimum distance separation setback from a nearby barn.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the instruments approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Class III Development Permit Application to construct six street-facing townhouses.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement that addressed the Town Committee's compatibility concerns by increasing the exterior side yard setback and requiring tree planting.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conformed to the applicable official plans and by-laws, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to issue the permit subject to the agreed conditions.

The appellants appealed the extension of Interim Control By-law No. 83-2024 by the Town of Carleton Place.

During a status update telephone conference call, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a proposed settlement and requested a written settlement hearing.

After confirming that proper notice had been served and an updated Affidavit of Service was filed, the Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider the proposed settlement.

The appellant, a former tenant, appealed an Inspection Order issued by Cornwall Fire Services to the building owners.

The owners subsequently complied with the order, and the appellant's tenancy was legally terminated.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeal.

The Fire Safety Commission granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was moot as there was no live controversy remaining.

The Commission also found that the appellant lacked standing because he was not an 'aggrieved' person under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, as the order imposed no obligations on him and he was no longer a tenant.

The City of Ottawa brought a Request for Review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision determining compensation for an expropriated property.

The City alleged the Tribunal made material errors in calculating market value by conflating Gross Building Area (GBA) with Gross Floor Area (GFA).

The Tribunal found that the requested changes were substantive and could not be corrected as minor errors under Rule 24.4.

However, applying Rule 25.7(c), the Tribunal concluded that the conflation of GBA and GFA, misstatements of evidence, and resulting confusion constituted a convincing and compelling case that an error was made such that a different decision would likely have been reached.

The Tribunal ordered a partial rehearing limited to the issue of market value, treating the original findings on highest and best use and environmental remediation costs as agreed.

The appellant sought a Zoning By-law Amendment to retroactively legalize unauthorized development on a waterfront property, including additions to a seasonal cottage and various decks within the prescribed 30-metre shoreline setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the requested exceptions failed to conform with the Township Official Plan's strict shoreline setback policies designed to protect the ecological and heritage features of the Rideau Canal waterway.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's ecological evidence due to factual misapprehensions and accepted the municipality's evidence that the unauthorized development likely had an unacceptable negative impact on the environment and Species at Risk habitat.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to permit a nine-storey mixed-use building with 56 residential units and ground-floor commercial space.

The requested variances included a reduced rear yard setback for a parking ramp wall and an increase in maximum building height from 15 metres to 30.1 metres.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, supports residential intensification and affordable housing, and satisfies the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern an upcoming 5-day video hearing regarding an appeal by VIA Rail Canada Inc. The appeal concerns the conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision in the City of Ottawa, specifically focusing on noise and vibration mitigation measures for development adjacent to a railway station.

The order establishes the procedural timeline, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The claimant sought an assessment of legal costs under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act following a settlement with the expropriating authority.

The authority argued that interest was not payable on unpaid legal accounts and that the claimant's costs were excessive due to duplication.

The Tribunal held that reasonable legal fees are payable regardless of whether they have been paid by the claimant, and that interest on those fees is compensable from the date of settlement.

The Tribunal reduced the claimant's legal costs by 10-20% for certain stages due to excessive internal discussions, awarding $356,755.45 in pre-settlement costs plus interest.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal received updates on settlement discussions and withdrawals, scheduled a three-day merit hearing for the Guibord appeal commencing February 10, 2025, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the Brigil and Youville appeals for February 18, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding an appeal by Via Rail Canada Inc. concerning proposed changes to conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision in the City of Ottawa.

The Tribunal received no further requests for party or participant status, considered the parties' updated Procedural Order submitted on consent, and scheduled a new five-day hearing commencing April 28, 2025, to allow additional time to review reports.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by VIA Rail Canada Inc. against the City of Ottawa's revised conditions for a draft plan of subdivision adjacent to a VIA Rail station.

The parties requested additional time to scope the remaining issues, particularly concerning noise and vibration data.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and issues list, and set a five-day Merit Hearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the municipality's revised conditions for a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties requested additional time to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The parties submitted a revised Procedural Order on consent following an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the revised Procedural Order, setting new dates for the hearing and pre-hearing steps regarding an appeal of conditions imposed on permission for the construction of an armour stone wall.

The appellant appealed the Town of Carleton Place's Interim Control By-law No. 99-2023, which affected its conditionally approved development permit for a residential and commercial building.

At a settlement hearing, the parties presented a settlement to remove the subject lands from the by-law's 'Strategic Properties' designation and extend the time to satisfy development conditions.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and good land use planning.