Michael Grimaldi

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and a vacant land condominium application for a 24-lot residential development.

On the second day of the scheduled 15-day merit hearing, the parties requested an adjournment to enter into formal Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the appeals sine die.

The appellant brought a motion for directions seeking document disclosure from the respondent municipality and an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision refusal.

The Tribunal found that the appellant would be prejudiced without the disclosure of reports to Council and agency comments, and that an adjournment was necessary to allow time for production and review.

The motion was granted in part, ordering partial disclosure and rescheduling the merit hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

A 14-day video hearing was scheduled to commence in April 2025.

The appellants appealed the City of Thunder Bay's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an outdoor recreational venue.

The City brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under section 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The appellants, who were self-represented, responded with an unsworn affidavit, which the Tribunal found inadmissible.

The Tribunal concluded that the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds, raising only process complaints and apprehensions.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The City of Thunder Bay brought a motion under section 34(31) of the Planning Act for an order allowing its new comprehensive zoning by-law to take effect while four site-specific appeals remained pending.

The City provided uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the by-law did not change the zoning provisions applicable to the appellants' properties.

The appellants did not respond to the motion or provide evidence of prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that allowing the unappealed portions of the by-law to come into force accorded with the purposes of the Planning Act and would not prejudice the appellants.

The applicant appealed the City of Thunder Bay's refusal to enact a zoning by-law amendment to permit a neighbourhood dental clinic in an existing residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the City passed an official plan amendment to allow the use, leading to a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the City to amend the existing zoning by-law, but declined to amend a newly adopted comprehensive zoning by-law that was not yet in force or formally before the Tribunal.

The City of Thunder Bay brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a minor variance approval without a hearing, arguing the appellant lacked standing.

The appellant, who lived over 14 kilometres away, claimed standing based on his special knowledge as a land use planner.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the appellant did not demonstrate that the variance would have impacts outside the local area, directly impact him, or affect matters of public interest.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant was not an 'interested person' under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed inspection orders issued by Thunder Bay Fire Rescue requiring their student rental properties to comply with the Ontario Fire Code provisions for rooming houses.

The Fire Safety Commission found that the properties were occupied as single housekeeping dwelling units, not rooming houses, based on evidence of collective decision-making among the student tenants.

The Commission rescinded the inspection orders but, on consent, ordered additional fire safety measures under section 26(6) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, given the unique risks of student housing.