R. Uukkivi

The appellant brought a motion seeking to hear the motion in writing on an expedited basis, to refuse participant status to three individuals who filed late notices of intention, and alternatively to permit the filing of responding expert witness statements.

The TLAB granted the request to hear the motion in writing and permitted the filing of responding expert witness statements.

However, the TLAB deferred the decision on whether to refuse participant status to the commencement of the scheduled in-person hearing, allowing the potential participants an opportunity to explain their interest and the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine them.

The appellant brought a motion to convert a scheduled electronic hearing into a one-day in-person oral hearing.

The appellant argued that an oral hearing would avoid technical issues and be more efficient for introducing documents.

While the Toronto Local Appeal Body noted its commitment to a paperless process and the general efficiency of electronic hearings, it granted the motion as an exception because the hearing was scheduled for a single day, no other parties were involved, and there would be no prejudice or undue inconvenience.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling on an existing lot of record fronting an unassumed public road.

The municipality opposed the variance primarily due to unresolved liability concerns regarding potential damage to the road during construction, as the property was not part of an adjacent subdivision agreement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on a conditional basis, finding that the variance satisfied the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's planning evidence over the municipality's circular liability arguments, but imposed a condition requiring the parties to resolve the liability issue within six months.

The City of Toronto brought a motion seeking to confirm the unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan), approve proposed modifications, and adjourn remaining site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence that the modifications represent good planning and are consistent with provincial policies.

The Tribunal approved the modifications, confirmed the unappealed portions, and granted the requested adjournments on consent of the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the Town of Georgina's Official Plan Amendment No. 147 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 500-2023-006.

The Tribunal granted one appellant's request to be removed as a party to the other's site-specific appeal.

A five-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for February 10, 2025, and a Procedural Order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision of the Assessment Review Board confirming the property tax treatment of 16 shared units within a condominium hotel building.

The appellant argued the units should be assessed at a nominal value because a change in ownership revoked a prior declaration designating them as 'hotel units', and that the current assessment resulted in double taxation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly interpreted the Regulation that a change in ownership does not constitute a 'change in status', and that the units were properly classified as part of hotel operations.

The Court also found no double taxation, as the appellant's tax burden arose from a reciprocal cost-sharing agreement rather than the assessment methodology.

The appellants appealed the City of Guelph's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential development consisting of cluster townhouses and an apartment building.

The City subsequently withdrew its objections after being satisfied with the stormwater management strategy.

An adjacent landowner argued the development would landlock its property and requested a Holding symbol to force coordinated development.

The Tribunal found that the lack of access was a pre-existing condition and that the proposed development represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Middleburg Developments Inc. and 1819213 Ontario Inc. against the Region of York and the Town of Georgina concerning an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Tribunal approved a phased approach for the hearings, finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List for the first phase, and scheduled a four-day video hearing for the Official Plan Amendment issues and a subsequent Case Management Conference for the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment issues.

The applicants appealed the City of Guelph's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a residential development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to adjacent landowners and participant status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

A five-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for October 2023.

The claimants and respondents brought cross-motions to compel answers to outstanding undertakings and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery in a claim for compensation for injurious affection.

At the commencement of the case management conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had resolved their differences and settled the matter.

The Tribunal ordered the file closed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in its previous decision dated April 28, 2022.

The amendments added Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited as a party and corrected the spelling of a counsel's name from Calvin Lance to Calvin Lantz.

The appellant appealed the passing of a zoning by-law amendment by the Township of Scugog, which rezoned the subject lands to permit a self-storage facility.

Prior to the scheduled four-day hearing of the merits, the parties requested an adjournment to proceed with a Case Management Conference instead, in order to scope and refine the issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, scheduled a new four-day hearing, and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order with a defined issues list.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan), the appellant 1941 Eglinton East Holdings Inc. brought a motion to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate land use designation for its lands.

The City opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that a motion regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction should be heard first.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's motion, finding it in the public interest to provisionally schedule the hearing pending the outcome of the City's jurisdictional motion, as doing so would offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Lora Bay Corporation against the Town of The Blue Mountains' Development Charge By-law No. 2019-17.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion hearing, a further telephone conference call, and a 10-day video hearing on the merits.

A procedural order was issued to govern the proceedings, including deadlines for witness lists, expert meetings, and document exchange.

The defendants brought a second motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered by the plaintiff against a residential property.

The defendants argued that new facts, including the plaintiff's rejection of a 'with prejudice' settlement offer and new evidence of financial hardship, justified the discharge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were improperly attempting to relitigate issues already decided on the first discharge motion and appeal.

The court held that the new evidence did not meet the exceptional circumstances test to overcome res judicata, and the equitable factors continued to favour maintaining the CPL.

The claimants brought a motion for a Procedural Order requiring the disclosure of a business loss report by the respondents and the scheduling of examinations for discovery in an expropriation proceeding.

During the Case Management Conference, the parties settled the motion and agreed to hearing dates.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled an eight-day hearing for September 2022, along with a further Case Management Conference for March 2022.

The Township of Oro-Medonte brought a motion seeking directions in an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment regulating cannabis production facilities.

The Township sought to exclude an issue regarding whether the by-law restricted normal farm practices, arguing the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Township also sought to bifurcate the appeals and consolidate one appellant's appeal with a separate Development Charges Act appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider whether the by-law restricted normal farm practices as part of its planning analysis, though it could not issue a formal declaration of contravention under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

The Tribunal dismissed the requests to bifurcate the appeals and to consolidate the development charges appeal, finding that consolidation of the zoning appeals was more efficient and the development charges appeal involved distinct issues.

The applicant appealed the Chief Building Official's decision to issue a building permit for a waste processing facility.

The applicant argued the facility was not a permitted 'Dry Industry' use and lacked required municipal service connections.

The Superior Court of Justice found the applicant had standing and upheld the CBO's reasonable determination that the facility was a permitted use.

However, the court modified the building permit to mandate that the facility be fully connected to municipal water and sewer services prior to occupancy, as required by the zoning by-law.