Robert Howe

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of Tiny's Zoning By-law No. 25-039 and Official Plan Amendment No. 5, which introduce a 'Shoreline Development Area'.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together, granted party status to several entities, confirmed the withdrawal of certain appeals, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

A 19-day merit hearing was scheduled for April 2027, and a further Case Management Conference was scheduled for July 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Tiny's Zoning By-law No. 25-039 and Official Plan Amendment No. 5, which introduced a Shoreline Development Area.

The Tribunal granted party status to two entities and participant status to nine individuals and associations.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals had been administratively consolidated and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to have five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals (Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc., Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc., and Whitechurch Landowners Group Inc.) heard together.

The parties consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard at the commencement of the previously scheduled Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the first scheduled merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the hearing of five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the common issues together was appropriate to ensure consistent adjudication and efficiency without prejudicing the individual site-specific hearings.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that addressed concerns regarding access and noise mitigation from adjacent employment lands.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amendments as modified by the settlement.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought by the defendant school board.

The plaintiff sought costs of $22,322.50 on a partial indemnity basis or $34,446.63 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant argued for costs of $10,551.37 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs of $14,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity basis, considering the plaintiff's success, the applicable hourly rates in the Northwest Region, and the factors set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the Town of The Blue Mountains' Development Charges By-law No. 2024-29.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence in March 2026.

The defendant, Lakehead District School Board, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s action on the basis of res judicata, cause of action estoppel, and abuse of process.

The plaintiff, David Brian Cavner, alleged he was sexually assaulted by a teacher in the 1960s and had previously brought a claim against the teacher, which was administratively dismissed for delay.

The Board argued that the plaintiff should not be able to bring a new claim against it based on the same facts.

The court found that the Board and the teacher were distinct parties, and that the previous dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, allowing the plaintiff’s claim to proceed.

Shoal Bayly brought a motion to add an issue to the Issues List regarding the funding of a specific road and bridge project through the Region's development charges.

The Region and other appellants had already reached a settlement on the existing issues.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed issue was distinct, should have been raised earlier, and was more appropriately addressed in separate ongoing proceedings regarding Shoal Bayly's draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal then approved the uncontested settlement, finding the proposed changes to the Development Charge By-law to be fair, reasonable, and in compliance with the Development Charges Act.

The parties sought direction from the Tribunal regarding unresolved issues in implementing a previous decision that partially approved draft plans of subdivision and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal clarified that its previous decision did not deny all potential development of Block 5, Stage 4, and therefore the existing Zone Change (ZC) zoning should remain.

The Tribunal also approved the appellants' broader wording for an easement over Block 6, Stage 4, and confirmed that the conditions of approval should not compel the appellants to reach a specific agreement with the City regarding the conveyance of lands for infrastructure.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Markham's Official Plan Amendment 53 (Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan).

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority and the York Region District School Board.

The parties agreed to pursue Tribunal-led mediation in the first quarter of 2025.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 5, 2025, with the Procedural Order and Issues List deferred pending the outcome of mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the Town of The Blue Mountains' Development Charges By-law 2024-29.

The parties advised that mediation was being discussed and draft issues lists were circulating.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to finalize their issues lists and file a draft Procedural Order.

The City of Brampton adopted the Heritage Heights Secondary Plan, which was subsequently appealed by multiple landowners and developers.

Following extensive mediation, the parties reached a settlement resulting in a Revised Heritage Heights Secondary Plan that accommodates provincial transportation and transmission corridors while increasing projected population and jobs.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised plan consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the modified plan save for two deferred areas that remain subject to ongoing discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2439675 Ontario Inc. and 2439672 Ontario Inc. against the City of Waterloo for failing to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the prescribed timeframe.

The applications seek to permit a multi-building, mixed-use development.

During the conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and The Club Willowells, and participant status to Drewlo Holdings Inc. on consent.

A second Case Management Conference and a 20-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of Durham's Development Charges By-law No. 42-2023.

The Tribunal approved a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a 20-day merit hearing to commence in February 2025, and granted a request to change the status of Fieldgate Developments and Umiak Investments Limited from Party to Participant.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant under the Planning Act for the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use, master-planned community.

The Tribunal granted participant status to neighbouring property owners on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the scheduled 18-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Barrie's Development Charges By-law 2023-74.

The parties reached an agreement on the terms of a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order on consent, setting a four-week hearing on the merits to commence in September 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of Durham's Development Charges By-law No. 42-2023.

The Region requested time to answer questions from the appellants to assist in identifying issues and exploring settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and directed the parties to exchange draft issues lists and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed a town-wide housekeeping amendment to the comprehensive Zoning By-Law that increased the minimum lot frontage requirement for back-to-back townhouse dwellings.

Prior to the adoption of the amendment, the appellant had submitted a complete development application that met the original lot frontage requirements.

The parties reached a settlement to include a footnote in the amendment exempting applications deemed complete prior to its adoption.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the amended by-law represents good planning and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.