Mark A. de Jong

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to expand the settlement area boundary.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner who raised concerns about density and environmental impacts.

The new party also filed a Notice of Constitutional Question regarding the Crown's duty to consult Indigenous groups, which the Tribunal scheduled to be heard as a motion for directions.

The Tribunal declined the applicant's request to schedule a hearing, finding it premature, and instead scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed the Township of West Lincoln's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 63, which implements a Secondary Plan for lands added to the Smithville Urban Area.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resolving numerous issues.

The Township brought a motion to approve the partial settlement, supported by uncontested expert planning affidavit evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the modified OPA 63 save for scoped site-specific policies, and scheduled a merit hearing for the remaining issues.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for appeals brought by 115 Bridgeport Inc. and 1648386 Ontario Ltd. against the City of Waterloo's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial development.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and filing dates leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 17, 2025.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by the appellant against the Township's Community Planning Permit By-law.

The parties reached an agreement resolving 19 of the 27 issues, with the remaining 8 addressed through modifications to the By-law.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended By-law consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.