Michael Polowin

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding a proposed below-water mineral aggregate extraction operation, the Ontario Land Tribunal consolidated three related appeals.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, recognizing the Crown's duty to consult on matters affecting Aboriginal or treaty rights, and to the Friends of Lanark Highlands as neighbouring landowners.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant sought an easement to establish a right of way for pedestrian and vehicular access in favour of a neighbouring property.

The Committee of Adjustment considered the application under the Planning Act and found it consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Committee granted the application, subject to conditions, finding that a plan of subdivision was not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Stillwater Station Ltd. for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use community in Ottawa.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian National Railway Company on consent.

A 12-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in April 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to replace an existing seasonal cottage with a four-season cottage.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the amendment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposed development represents good land use planning, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Pegasus Development Corporation against the Town of Carleton Place's new Town-wide Development Permit By-law.

The Tribunal granted party status to Inverness Homes Inc., approved the Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on August 10, 2026.

The appellant appealed the township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

Prior to the scheduled merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement in principle.

The Tribunal converted the merit hearing to a status hearing and scheduled a written settlement hearing.

The Tribunal also directed that a participant's document be included in their participant statement and that an addendum to a witness statement be removed from the record on consent.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Ottawa's non-decision on a site plan application for a 94-unit townhome development.

The parties advised that a recent zoning by-law amendment resolved most issues, leaving only parkland in dispute.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to provide a status update on settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for December 8, 2025, regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 3 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The parties advised that settlement discussions are nearing completion and requested one more conference.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tay Valley's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the demolition of a cottage and construction of a year-round dwelling.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

A two-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for November 2025.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a City of Ottawa by-law designating a property as having cultural heritage value.

The parties disputed the inclusion of certain issues in the Issues List for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal determined that the appellant's proposed issues relating to future development and official plan conformity were outside the scope of the Ontario Heritage Act and excluded them from the Issues List.

A Procedural Order was approved and a two-day video hearing was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the demolition of a cottage and construction of a year-round dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant requested that hearing dates be scheduled immediately, while the Township requested a second CMC to allow time to secure a planning witness.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for four weeks later to balance the applicant's desire to proceed with the Township's need to identify its witness and finalize the issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order scheduling a further Case Management Conference for October 15, 2025, regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The scheduling order was made after the parties advised that settlement discussions had advanced.

Multiple appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested a further CMC instead of scheduling merit hearings.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC by videoconference.

This was a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Carleton Place's Official Plan Amendment No. 8.

The Tribunal noted that Pegasus Development Corporation failed to submit a party status request form and was therefore not a party to the appeals.

The Tribunal also determined that Zoning By-law No. 32-2021 was not before it, as it was never appealed, and excluded it from the Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The parties advised that they are engaged in ongoing settlement discussions and requested a further CMC to provide an update.

The Tribunal scheduled a further video CMC for May 27, 2025, and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List if a settlement is not reached.

The Town of Carleton Place brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Pegasus Development Corporation regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 8.

The Town argued that Pegasus lacked standing under s. 17(36) of the Planning Act because it did not make oral or written submissions to Council before the amendment was adopted.

Pegasus contended that its communications with senior municipal staff should be considered submissions to Council under the law of agency.

The Tribunal held that ad hoc meetings and emails with planning staff outside the formal public meeting process do not satisfy the strict statutory requirement of making submissions to Council.

The motion was granted and Pegasus's appeal was dismissed, with leave to request party status to shelter under another valid appeal.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of an application under s. 45(2)(a)(i) of the Planning Act to enlarge an existing legally non-conforming building.

The proposal involved demolishing two century-old semi-detached dwellings in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District and reconstructing two larger semi-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found that the existing dwellings, although uninhabitable, remained structurally intact from the public realm and thus maintained their legally non-conforming use status.

Applying the Fraser Test, the Tribunal concluded the enlargement was desirable for the appropriate development of the lands and would not cause undue adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the requested permissions.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a change to the legal non-conforming use of an existing commercial building from an automobile service station to an equipment rental and repair business.

The Tribunal found that the legal non-conforming use had continued and evolved in accordance with the principles in Saint-Romuald, as the new use was similar in nature and did not involve heavy vehicles.

The Tribunal concluded that the use was appropriate for the area and that the City failed to demonstrate any undue adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the continuation of the non-conforming use was authorized.

The applicant sought consent under section 53 of the Planning Act for a lot line adjustment to convey a 0.04 square metre portion of her property to the abutting property owners at 1 Second Avenue, and to expand an existing detached garage.

The application was part of a mutual land exchange to eliminate an existing eave encroachment.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of provincial interest, and satisfied the criteria under subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The application for provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, including the requirement that the severed land merge with the abutting property.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit a reduced rear yard setback, rear yard area, and interior side yard setback to expand an existing detached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment found that the requested variances met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The application was granted as amended.