P. DeMelo

The applicant sought declaratory relief and permanent injunctions against a neighbouring winery and the Town, alleging the winery hosted outdoor events in violation of the agricultural zoning by-law and its site-specific plan.

The winery consented to the declarations and injunctions.

The applicant proceeded against the Town, seeking mandamus to compel by-law enforcement and a statutory injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the Town from facilitating the breach.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application against the Town, finding that the by-law did not impose a duty of enforcement necessary for mandamus, and there was no evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness by the Town to warrant an injunction against it.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the city's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit two 15-storey residential apartment buildings.

The Tribunal granted party status to Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited and the Broadway Area Residents Association, and participant status to the Leaside Residents Association.

The parties were directed to submit a draft procedural order and issues list for the scheduling of a future hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a 322-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the County of Bruce and the Municipality of Kincardine, and participant status to two other entities.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing and approved the Procedural Order.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The City sought $27,699.06 and the developer sought $43,176.94, while the appellant argued costs should be fixed at $25,000.00 total.

The Divisional Court noted the appellant's own bill of costs was over $59,000, indicating its reasonable expectations.

The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 to the City and $30,000.00 to the developer, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.

Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.

The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.

The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Walker Aggregates Inc. against the Region of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a mineral aggregate extraction operation.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached, significantly narrowing the issues.

The Tribunal granted requests to reschedule the hearing to a shorter 7-day duration in November 2026 and scheduled a fourth CMC for June 2026 to allow for finalization of settlement agreements and further discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Cambridge's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal consolidated the two appeals, granted participant status to two entities, and scheduled a 15-day hearing for November 2026.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed high-density mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to one individual and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

A 14-day merit hearing was also scheduled for October 2026.

The appellant filed a site plan approval application and subsequently appealed the City's failure to make a decision within the statutory timeframe.

The respondent, who owned the subject lands, sought to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the outcome of parallel civil litigation regarding a purchase agreement for the lands.

The appellant brought a motion for directions seeking declarations that it was the owner of the site plan application, that the appeal was valid, and that the matter should not be held in abeyance.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had been acting as an agent for the respondent and that this agency had been revoked.

Applying a strict interpretation of 'owner' under s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, the Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the appeal while ownership was being litigated could lead to absurd results.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's motion and adjourned the appeal sine die pending the outcome of the civil litigation.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a revised development of 104 stacked back-to-back townhouses, reduced from the originally proposed 15-storey building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The City of Niagara Falls requested an adjournment of an upcoming hearing regarding 2023 planning instruments, arguing the proceeding may become moot due to a prior Tribunal decision that precluded the appellant's appeal of superseding 2025 planning instruments under Bill 185.

The appellant opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled hearing to allow the appellant time to consider whether to seek a review or appeal of the prior decision, and to avoid potentially unnecessary proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update within 60 days.

The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion for directions to determine whether Cytec Canada Inc. had standing to appeal three planning instruments under the Planning Act.

Following amendments by the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, appeals are restricted to 'specified persons'.

Cytec argued it qualified as an environmental compliance approval (ECA) holder.

The Tribunal found that the plain language of subsection 1(1)(l) of the Planning Act requires the ECA activity to be undertaken on lands within 300 metres of the planning area.

Because Cytec's ECA applied to lands further away, and not to its 'Beechwood Lands' within the 300-metre radius, it did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal ordered that Cytec's appeals were precluded.

The appellant appealed the conditions of approval for a draft plan of condominium proposing 20 resort commercial units, specifically challenging the requirement for 20 weeks of mandatory rental availability.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to reduce the mandatory rental period to 10 weeks, with two weeks required during the summer season.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised condition was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the condition accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant and party status to several individuals and entities, deferred one party status request, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 15-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Cambridge's refusal to enact a Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the Waterloo Region District School Board on consent.

A request for party status by adjacent landowners Funchal Enterprises Inc. and Urros Investments Inc. was denied, but they were granted participant status with leave to re-apply for party status at the next CMC.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation once the related draft plan of subdivision appeal is filed.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on its application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 432-unit residential community.

The issues centered on the adequacy of proposed external servicing improvements, the safety and efficiency of the proposed road network (specifically an S-curve), and the proposed parkland dedication.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed servicing improvements were adequate and did not require a complete replacement of external infrastructure.

The Tribunal also preferred the applicant's transportation evidence, finding the road network safe and efficient.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the parkland dedication had already been settled in a previous agreement.

The appeal was allowed, with final approval withheld pending draft conditions.

The appellant appealed a site-specific zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Port Colborne to facilitate a residential subdivision, arguing that the existing wastewater infrastructure lacked capacity and that a holding zone provision should have been applied.

The developer brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal found that the adequacy of wastewater servicing had been appropriately considered and addressed through conditions of draft plan approval, which fall under the Region's jurisdiction.

Concluding that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the deferral of a consent application by the Town of Uxbridge Land Division Committee.

The application sought to sever a residential property to create two new lots for single-detached dwellings.

The proposal was revised to include the sale of a 2-metre strip to the Town for a pedestrian walkway, and the required minor variances for reduced lot frontages were subsequently approved by the Committee of Adjustment.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with regional and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

This was the first Case Management Conference for two appeals regarding an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 28-storey apartment building in Richmond Hill.

The Tribunal denied a request for Party Status but granted Participant Status to several individuals.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day hearing for both appeals to be heard together and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference concerning appeals by Picton Heights Ltd. regarding the County of Prince Edward's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a draft plan of subdivision for a 560-unit residential community.

The parties submitted a joint draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming merit hearing scheduled for April 3, 2024.