Roberto Aburto

The plaintiff, a resident of Howe Island, brought an action against the Province of Ontario, the County of Frontenac, and Transport Canada after the capacity of the Howe Island ferry was reduced from 15 to 10 vehicles due to safety regulations.

The defendants brought motions to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the defendants owed no private law duty of care to the plaintiff to maintain a specific level of public service, and that the claim for pure economic loss was untenable.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

At a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment, the Tribunal granted party status to Atura Power and participant status to three local residents.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and scheduled a 15-day merits hearing.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 and Zoning By-law 702-2024, which regulate development on Ookwemin Minising (formerly Villiers Island) in Toronto's Port Lands.

The modifications address building heights, density, land uses, and meanwhile uses.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with the applicable Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the approval authority's failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Town of Carleton Place on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties time to frame the issues and finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's by-law designating its property, a former church, as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and jointly submitted that the appeal be allowed in part to amend the statement of cultural heritage value and description of heritage attributes.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission and the uncontested expert cultural heritage evidence, allowing the appeal in part and amending the by-law to reflect the revised schedule of heritage attributes.

The appellants appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a new single detached dwelling within 500 metres of a former waste disposal site.

The municipality did not call evidence at the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and hydrogeological evidence, the Tribunal found no risk of contamination to the subject property.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would facilitate the construction of 660 residential units.

A Case Management Conference was held where the applicant for the by-law amendment was granted party status.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence in May 2026.

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 municipality initiated an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to designate a new provincially significant wetland.

Two sets of appellants appealed the amendments.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal ordered that the appeals be severed because their factual underpinnings are site-specific.

Second Case Management Conferences were scheduled for both sets of appeals to address procedural orders, motions, and scheduling.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3 (OPA 3), which added the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

The appellant argued that the Secondary Plan inappropriately restricted their property to non-residential uses and a four-storey height limit due to a lack of committed funding for a nearby planned transit station.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the City's 'wait and see' approach to zoning based on infrastructure funding contradicted the Planning Act and failed to recognize provincial policy directions for growth and housing.

The Tribunal ordered modifications to OPA 3 to include the subject property in the Station Area, permit 40-storey heights and mixed-use residential development, and remove the requirement for a Demonstration Plan.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment intended to facilitate the development of 45 stacked row dwelling condominiums.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised applications.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding the proposal represents good land use planning, constitutes appropriate residential intensification, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

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 applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development of up to 290 townhouse units.

The parties reached a settlement that increased setbacks from Collins Creek and removed single-detached dwellings in favour of townhouses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an increased height and aggregate floor area for a new detached garage on a property zoned Environmental Protected.

The Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the structure was intended to house equipment for laneway maintenance and would not create negative impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

Metrolinx applied for approval to expropriate portions of the subject properties for a temporary easement to provide construction access for track work related to the SmartTrack Program and GO Expansion.

Following discussions, the parties agreed to a revised, non-exclusive temporary easement with a reduced area.

The Tribunal found the proposed revised taking to be fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve Metrolinx's objectives of expanding and improving public transit services, and recommended approval of the expropriation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings for an appeal of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48, which adopts the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence for the hearing scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 3, the Tribunal heard a motion to substitute Denise Ménard as a party in place of 3930149 Canada Inc., whose conditional agreement of purchase and sale with Ménard had been cancelled.

With no objections, the Tribunal granted the motion.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to 21 individuals representing the public's interest in the overall effect of the OPA.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2024.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and the failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 34-unit townhouse and semi-detached development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new single-detached dwelling with a front-facing attached garage, increased driveway width, and reduced landscape buffer.

The City did not participate in the hearing.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the Streetscape Character Analysis did not accurately reflect the existing neighbourhood character, which already featured numerous front-facing garages.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and being desirable and minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the development of a six-storey, 23-unit apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions in parking requirements, an increase in maximum residential density, and a reduction in the minimum rear setback.

The City took no position on the appeal.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of Provincial interest, and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.