Analee Baroudi

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.

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 Town of LaSalle brought a motion for directions to declare unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan) in force and effect.

The appellants had agreed to scope their appeals on a site-specific or area-specific basis.

Sorge Enterprises Inc., a non-appellant party sheltering under the appellants' issues, opposed the motion, arguing that the appeals should not be scoped and the broader Environmental Protection Designation should remain under appeal for all lands.

The Tribunal granted the Town's motion, finding that a non-appellant sheltering party has no right to craft issues or dictate the scope of appeals, which is the prerogative of the actual appellants.

The unappealed portions of the OPA were declared in force and effect.

The applicants appealed the refusal of their minor variance application by the Town's Committee of Adjustment.

The variances were sought to permit the construction of a detached accessory second dwelling unit.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on revised variances for interior side yard setback and lot coverage, as two other variances were no longer required due to a zoning by-law amendment.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

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 applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of their minor variance application to permit the construction of a detached accessory building containing two additional residential units.

The subject property had a unique configuration where the functional rear yard was technically classified as the front yard under the zoning by-law, necessitating variances for location and setback.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the creation of an undersized 8.2-hectare agricultural lot in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed instruments did not have regard for the protection of agricultural resources under s. 2(b) of the Planning Act and were not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, as they would result in the fragmentation of prime agricultural land and limit flexibility for future agricultural uses.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application for an Official Plan Amendment to alter the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard designation boundaries on the subject lands to facilitate future residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the Hazard Land Overlay and created a Special Policy Area requiring further environmental and geotechnical studies before development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence and approved the settlement, finding the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the City of Sarnia's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey, 56-unit affordable housing development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

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 appellant appealed the City of London's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey, 10-unit apartment building on a property adjacent to an environmentally significant area.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included rezoning a portion of the property as open space to act as a buffer, transferring it to the City, and implementing an environmental management plan.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, allowing the appeal in part to approve the amended by-law.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a wedding and event venue as an agri-tourism use in a rural area.

At the fifth Case Management Conference, the parties requested another conference or an adjournment sine die to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal refused the request, noting the matter had languished too long, and scheduled a one-day merit hearing to bring the matter to a conclusion.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference to resolve disputes regarding the Procedural Order and Issues List for an appeal of a refused Official Plan Amendment.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to provide updated technical studies and a draft OPA prior to the witness statement deadline to ensure fairness.

The Tribunal also ruled that the Issues List would include an issue regarding the weight to be given to the County's newly adopted Official Plan, noting that the Clergy Principle is a discretionary procedural policy.

The Tribunal further refined issues relating to the Provincial Planning Statement and the absence of a specific development proposal.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment, Sorge Enterprises Inc. brought a motion seeking to invalidate the County's Notice of Decision and to be added as an appellant despite filing its appeal out of time.

Sorge argued the Notice was deficient for failing to explicitly list registered owners as having appeal rights.

The Tribunal found the Notice of Decision met all prescribed regulatory requirements and was valid.

Consequently, Sorge's appeal was out of time, and the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the statutory appeal period.

Sorge's request to be added as an appellant was denied, but it was granted non-appellant party status on consent.

The appellant appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 10 (OPA 10), which expanded the settlement area boundary of the Village of Lucan.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to further amend OPA 10 by redesignating the subject agricultural lands to a Residential Special Policy Area to accommodate future residential growth.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement agreement consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed to approve OPA 10 as modified by the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an additional residential unit above an existing garage with greater building height and lot coverage.

The Tribunal qualified a land use planner who testified that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal favored the appellant's evidence, finding that the application represented efficient use of the lands and met the four tests.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a municipal council's refusal to amend an Official Plan, the parties sought direction on the scope of the Issues List.

The appellant sought to alter a Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard boundary to facilitate a future severance, arguing the hearing should only address the boundary adjustment.

The municipality argued that because the appellant effectively sought a new Residential designation for the lands, policies relating to residential uses and settlement areas were relevant.

The Tribunal agreed with the municipality, finding that to replace the current designation with a Residential one, the appropriateness of that new designation must be evaluated, making the related policies relevant for the Issues List.

The appellants appealed the City of Sarnia Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-detached dwelling with an attached three-car garage.

The variances sought relief for exterior side yard setback, garage door setback, and driveway width.

The City opposed the garage door setback variance, arguing it would lead to illegal parking encroaching on the municipal right-of-way.

The Tribunal favored the appellants' planning evidence, finding that the potential for illegal parking was an enforcement issue rather than a planning matter, and that the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

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

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a wedding and event venue as an agri-tourism use in a rural area.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested additional time for their planners to discuss the matter following the applicants' retention of new counsel and a new planner.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for December 1, 2025, to monitor progress and potentially finalize a Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the City of London's proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendment which sought to modify the boundary of the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) to include a portion of the appellant's lands.

The appellant argued the boundary expansion was premature and not supported by ecological evidence, as the lands were dominated by invasive species and lacked significant natural features.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, finding that the City's proposed ESA boundary was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the London Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the appellant's proposed ESA boundary line.