J. Polowin

The Appellants appealed the City of Clarence-Rockland's Development Charge By-law No. 2025-93.

At the first Case Management Conference, Clarence Crossing Regional Inc. requested and was granted Party status on consent of the City and without opposition from the Appellants.

The Tribunal set a timeline for the parties to finalize an Issues List and draft Procedural Order.

The claimants seek compensation for injurious affection arising from the township's alleged failure to properly construct, maintain, and operate a drainage system.

A case management conference was held to review and approve a revised procedural order and set new hearing dates.

The Tribunal directed the claimants to submit a finalized procedural order and scheduled a five-day video hearing for May 2026, noting the parties' interest in potential mediation.

Theia Partners Inc. and the City of Ottawa brought a joint motion to dismiss appeals filed by prospective appellants regarding an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The moving parties argued that the prospective appellants lacked standing under the Planning Act, as amended by Bill 185 (Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024), which restricted third-party appeal rights.

The Tribunal found that the prospective appellants were not 'specified persons' and did not own land to which the amendments applied.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for lack of standing.

The applicant appealed the Township of Horton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a Class A gravel pit.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they had reached a settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing event to consider the settlement.

The moving party, R.W. Tomlinson Limited, sought an order for costs against the Town of Greater Napanee and Keep Napanee Great following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for an asphalt plant.

Tomlinson alleged that the respondents acted unreasonably by pursuing an appeal with no reasonable prospect of success and raising irrelevant evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act to establish an easement for maintenance and access over its property in favour of an abutting property.

The easement was required as a condition of Site Plan Control Approval for the construction of an eight-storey hotel.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the application was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application to permit a permanent hot-mix asphalt plant and a future ready-mix concrete plant.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the County and Town Official Plans.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence demonstrating that the plant is appropriately separated from sensitive land uses and that potential impacts related to noise, dust, odour, and traffic can be adequately mitigated.

The appeal was allowed, and the Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan were approved.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing under subsection 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The amendment permitted the development of a 10-unit transitional housing apartment building and regularized an existing group home.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's concerns regarding public consultation, servicing adequacy, traffic safety, and zoning compliance were unsubstantiated apprehensions and did not constitute genuine land use planning grounds.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought costs of $41,799.26 against the appellant following a minor variance appeal regarding a residential redevelopment.

The applicant argued the appellant's conduct was unreasonable and frivolous.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the appellant had provided reasons for her appeal, retained an expert arborist, did not cause unnecessary delays, and successfully advocated for additional conditions to protect a tree.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a Cannabis Production Facility and reduce setbacks on a rural commercial property.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal, which reuses an existing building and includes an air treatment system, is consistent with provincial policies and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-laws were amended accordingly.

The applicant appealed the Town of Greater Napanee's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit a permanent asphalt and ready-mix concrete plant.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a local group, Keep Napanee Great, on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day hearing of the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Ottawa's Development Charges By-laws.

The Tribunal noted the withdrawal of two appeals, that six matters remained under active discussion, and that one matter (Chapman Mills) required a hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing for the Chapman Mills appeal and set a fourth Case Management Conference for the remaining matters.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal to enact zoning by-law amendments to permit a 17-storey hotel at 116 York Street, located near the ByWard Market Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal determined that a heritage permit was not required because the heritage district had not been upgraded to a Plan under the Ontario Heritage Act.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the architectural design attempted to respect nearby heritage structures, the proposed height and lack of adequate setbacks constituted overbuilding for the small site and failed to meet urban design guidelines.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 1,900-unit residential development.

The sole issue was parkland dedication.

The applicant argued the City was bound by a 2005 Site Plan Agreement (SPA) that required only 2% cash-in-lieu of parkland.

The City sought a 10% dedication based on its current by-law, arguing the 2005 SPA contemplated only commercial/industrial uses.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 2005 SPA was predicated on commercial uses, and under s. 42(7)(b) of the Planning Act, the City had the authority to demand additional parkland conveyance because the lands were now proposed for residential development.