Alex Ciccone

The appellants challenged the dismissal of an application concerning the location and scope of a right-of-way serving their land-locked lot, the effect of a later agreement, alleged interference caused by a fence, and an oppression claim against a not-for-profit corporation connected to the development.

The Court of Appeal held that the application judge was entitled to find that the governing right-of-way was created by a 1961 shareholder resolution, that the 1974 agreement did not create a different route, and that the fence did not substantially interfere with the granted easement.

The court also rejected a new regulatory theory concerning conservation authority approval and found no evidentiary basis for the oppression claim.

Applying deferential appellate review, the court found no palpable and overriding error or extricable legal error and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of Niagara Falls' failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 10-storey mixed-use building.

The subject property is located adjacent to the Battlefield Museum, a recognized heritage site.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development's height, mass, and scale would overwhelm the adjacent heritage property and did not conform with the City's Official Plan policies regarding compatibility and transition.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's planners and heritage experts, concluding the proposal was an overbuild that did not represent good planning.

The appeals were dismissed.

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 applicants appealed the refusal of the County of Oxford and the Township of Blandford-Blenheim to approve an official plan amendment and a zoning by-law amendment to permit a seasonal special events facility on agricultural lands.

The central issue was whether the facility qualified as an on-farm diversified use under the Provincial Planning Statement and Guideline 851.

The Tribunal found that the facility met the criteria for an on-farm diversified use, as it was located on a farm, secondary to the principal agricultural use, limited in area, and compatible with surrounding agricultural operations.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments, concluding they were consistent with provincial policy and represented good land use planning.

The applicants brought an application to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from propane cannons used for bird control at the respondent's vineyard.

The Board determined that the use of propane cannons consistent with OMAFA guidelines is a normal farm practice, but modified the practice pursuant to s. 5(4)(c) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

On consent, the Board ordered the respondent to adhere to specific voluntary restrictions regarding the placement, volume, rotation, and frequency of the cannons in the vineyard.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal received status updates indicating that several site-specific appeals had been resolved, while constructive discussions continued on the remaining city-wide and site-specific appeals.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second multi-day Case Management Conference for March 2026 to further organize the proceedings and establish a Procedural Order for any unresolved issues.

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions regarding a settlement motion concerning appeals of an Official Plan Amendment.

While the Consensus Parties suggested the motion proceed in writing due to the highly nuanced nature of the arguments, the responding party preferred an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal found that the submissions would be highly nuanced and ordered the settlement motion to proceed in writing, setting a schedule for the exchange of materials.

The applicant sought an order compelling the Long Point Region Conservation Authority (LPRCA) to enforce a permit issued to his neighbours, who had constructed a retaining wall contrary to the approved grading plan.

The LPRCA had investigated the applicant's complaint but exercised its discretion to take no enforcement action, concluding the completed work conformed with the applicable legislation.

The Superior Court found that while the LPRCA has the discretionary authority to enforce its permits through stop orders or charges, it is not mandatory.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Court held that the LPRCA's decision not to take enforcement steps was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application was dismissed.

The County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc brought a joint scoping motion under s. 17(50) of the Planning Act to approve the non-contentious portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 14 (OPA-14) and bring them into force.

The appellant consented to scoping its appeal to specific policies and schedules.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that bringing the non-contentious portions into force represents good planning, reduces unnecessary site-specific applications, and is consistent with provincial policies.

The motion was granted, and the non-contentious portions of OPA-14 were deemed in full force and effect.

The appellant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use, master-planned community with approximately 1,800 residential units.

The Tribunal found that the proposed 'Mixed-Use High Density Residential' designation was appropriate and ordered a minimum requirement of 3,000 square metres of non-residential gross floor area.

The Tribunal also approved requested relief for building heights and tower floorplates, finding that detailed urban design, transportation, and parkland dedication matters would be appropriately addressed through the subsequent site plan approval process.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised instruments with modifications.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and consent to sever a property into three lots.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to another neighbour on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered the consolidation of the appeals, finding they contain common facts and concern the same subject land.

A procedural order was issued and a five-day video hearing was scheduled.

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 sought to sever a 0.4-hectare parcel from a 19.8-hectare agricultural property to construct a new dwelling on the site of a historic farm dwelling demolished in 2005.

The municipal Committee of Adjustment approved the consent application as a surplus farm dwelling severance due to farm consolidation.

The County appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused provisional consent, finding that the Provincial Planning Statement and applicable official plans strictly require an existing habitable dwelling on the property to qualify for a surplus farm dwelling severance.

Because the historic dwelling no longer existed, the application was effectively for the creation of a new residential lot in a prime agricultural area, which is prohibited.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and approved a procedural order.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard and approved a settlement between BSC Landco Inc. and the City regarding the property at 555 Greenwich Street.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to rezone a portion of the property from 'Core Natural' to a 'Holding - General Employment' zone, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 19-storey rental apartment building located within a Major Transit Station Area and the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District.

The City and a neighbourhood association opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the heritage character and too tall for the site.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, as it directs intensification to an underutilized site near transit.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence that the building's design mitigates adverse impacts on privacy, overlook, and cultural heritage resources, and meets the overall intent of the City's Urban Design Manual and Heritage District Plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the township and county for failing to adopt an Official Plan amendment and a Zoning By-law amendment.

The amendments were requested to permit a special events facility on agricultural lands.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on January 19, 2026, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 390-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment, official plan amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a proposed residential development in Woodstock.

The statutory parties advised that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal considered requests for Party and Participant status.

John Bell's request for Party status was denied as there were no remaining issues to shelter under given the settlement, and his participation as a Party would cause prejudice through increased hearing length and cost; he was granted Participant status instead.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to 85 other requestors, ordered the matters to be heard together, and scheduled a settlement hearing.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an additional residential unit within an existing accessory building on agricultural lands.

The municipality argued the proposal was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and failed to meet Minimum Distance Separation guidelines.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' planning evidence, finding the applications had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the PPS 2024, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The appellant appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 59 (OPA 59) by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The parties reached a settlement to modify OPA 59 to reflect a prior site-specific approval (OPA 46) granted by the Tribunal for the appellant's lands, which permitted medium density residential development.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modification was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlement and modified OPA 59 accordingly.