David Sunday

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application intended to facilitate the future severance of a surplus farm dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed severance would create a residential lot not associated with agricultural use in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the application failed to meet Minimum Distance Separation requirements, was inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, and did not conform to the County and Town Official Plans.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Sarnia's Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The Tribunal directed the parties to continue mediation efforts and submit a draft final Procedural Order and Issues List by January 24, 2025.

A 12-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the County of Lambton's decision to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 3, adopted by the City of Sarnia.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents on consent.

The parties agreed to participate in a scoping exercise to identify the specific sections and schedules of the OPA under appeal.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 28, 2024, to provide an update on the scoping exercise and to schedule a hearing date.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a Country Inn development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the new owners of the subject lands on consent.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled for January 2024, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by HJ Donegan Holdings Inc. for a proposed residential subdivision in North Perth.

The appeal was filed due to the municipality's failure to render a decision on zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision applications within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner, Erie Meats, on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 14-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application for a 32-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two residents' associations, approved a phased hearing process starting with the Zoning By-law Amendment, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a seven-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order following a case management conference regarding appeals of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming's Official Plan Amendments 51 and 54.

The appeals concern a request to permit a surplus farm dwelling severance and the Town's five-year review of its Official Plan.

The Order sets out the hearing schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the video hearing scheduled to commence on December 11, 2023.

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that resolved concerns regarding land use compatibility with a nearby poultry processing facility and the preservation of a heritage farmhouse.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed development, with an agreed 150-metre separation distance and warning clauses, represents good planning, is in the public interest, and satisfies all legislative requirements.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal addressed two motions regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendments 51 and 54.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together.

The Tribunal also ordered the appellant to provide substantive responses to the Town's request for particulars on a without prejudice basis.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for December 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals concerning the Region of Waterloo's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 128.

The order sets out the organization of the video hearing scheduled for November 6, 2023, the requirements before the hearing including the exchange of witness statements and expert reports, and the issues list.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by Joseph and Laura Puopolo against the Region of Waterloo's adoption of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (ROPA 2).

The settlement proposed utilizing the appellants' lands as a stormwater retention pond and outlet facility, freeing up other lands within ROPA 2 for residential development without expanding the urban area.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the Regional Official Plan, allowed the appeal in part, and amended ROPA 2 accordingly.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton advised that it is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review that may result in an urban boundary expansion, potentially resolving many appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 4, 2021, to allow time for the City to provide direction on the boundary expansion and for the parties to prepare an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Perth and the Municipality of North Perth.

The parties reached a compromise settlement to revise the amendments to continue permitting a mixed-use development.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and in conformity with the County Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised amendments.

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their applications for consent to sever a property and for associated minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The City did not appear to oppose the appeal.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert evidence in architecture, urban design, and land use planning that the proposed development was a better fit for the neighbourhood than the larger as-of-right semi-detached building permitted by the zoning.

The Tribunal found that the consent applications had due regard for provincial interests and met the statutory criteria, and that the variances satisfied the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that ordered the application of a discounted industrial rate for development charges on a new building constructed by the respondent developer.

The municipality argued the LPAT erred by applying a balance of probabilities standard rather than requiring certainty of future industrial use, and sought to introduce fresh evidence of non-industrial tenants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's application of the civil standard of proof to predict future use, rejecting the fresh evidence as irrelevant to the time of building permit issuance, and concluding the issues were not of sufficient general or public importance.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming motion for leave to appeal from a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motion to be heard by video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The applicant municipality sought an order under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the respondent from using her property as a short-term rental, arguing it constituted an illegal 'Tourist Establishment' under the zoning by-law.

The respondent brought a counter-application seeking a declaration that her use was permitted or that the by-law was unacceptably vague and ultra vires.

The court found that the by-law did not clearly regulate short-term use in the Resort Residential zone and that, by attempting to regulate the identity of the users rather than the use of the land, it was ultra vires the Planning Act.

The municipality's application was dismissed and the by-law was declared of no force and effect to the extent it purported to regulate short-term rentals.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring the disclosure of records containing homeowners' addresses and environmental test results.

The Divisional Court set aside the order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

The court found that the information arguably constituted 'personal information' and that procedural fairness, as well as potentially section 28 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, required that the affected homeowners be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before their information could be disclosed.