Stephen Watt

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the new Official Plan for the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address procedural matters and a motion by the Town to bring unappealed portions of the Official Plan into force.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Community Planning Permit Application to legalize an as-built two-storey sleeping cabin.

The cabin exceeded the maximum permitted gross floor area and building height.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the cabin, built on the foundation of a former garage, was well set back from the shoreline and visually screened by mature vegetation.

The Tribunal found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the applicable Official Plans, and compliant with the general intent of the Community Planning Permit By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the permit was granted.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order for appeals against the County of Simcoe's approval of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

Lorablue Developments Inc. requested an adjournment of its appeal, arguing it was site-specific and required ecological studies.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the appeal included broad policy issues that should be addressed at the scheduled hearing, though the parties could later agree to defer the issues if narrowed.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The applicant appealed the township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and nine consent to sever applications to create 10 residential lots.

The applicant and the township reached a settlement, but neighboring property owners opposed the development, arguing it did not conform to provincial and local planning policies regarding natural heritage and lot creation outside settlement areas.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the development appropriately protected ecological systems, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the zoning by-law amendment and granting provisional consents subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the North Almaguin Planning Board's refusal of applications for Provisional Consents to sever a property containing two cottages into two separate lots and to create an easement for driveway access.

The parties reached a settlement requiring the installation of new private sanitary sewage systems.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed consents were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and had regard to the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the provisional consents were granted subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Town proposed a revised hearing plan extending into 2027, which the Tribunal rejected due to its mandate for timely proceedings.

Instead, the Tribunal added ten hearing days in May 2026 and directed parties to advise if more time is needed for site-specific appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an unopposed request by one appellant to adjourn its appeals sine die to allow for seasonal fieldwork and testing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a written settlement hearing and a telephone conference call to address a revised phased hearing plan and proposed settlements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 23, 2025.

The amendment revised paragraph 6 to update the deadlines for certain appellants to submit revisions to their issues lists on consent.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant Party Status to three entities on consent, noting they must shelter under the appellants' issues.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 25-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to continue scoping issues and exploring settlement.

Multiple appeals were brought under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act regarding the adoption of a new town-wide Official Plan by the Town of Collingwood, as approved by the County of Simcoe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four requesting entities without objection.

The Tribunal deferred three requests for party status until the next CMC or until an Issues List is formalized, to allow the proposed parties to identify which issues they will shelter under pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A second CMC was scheduled to consider the deferred requests and further organize the appeals.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a multiple dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement to permit an 8-unit multiple dwelling with site-specific zone standards.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and in conformity with the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario and the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Greater Sudbury's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a three-storey, 10-unit multiple dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals opposing the application.

The parties requested an adjournment to scope the issues list and engage in mediation.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter to a second Case Management Conference.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to permit an in-ground pool, enclosure, and pool house in the front yard of their irregularly shaped lot.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the procedures leading up to a hearing scheduled to commence on December 2, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals by UCCI Consolidated Companies Inc. regarding the Township of Oro-Medonte's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and consents to sever 10 new lots.

The procedural order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, and includes an issues list and order of evidence.

The Applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and consents to sever to facilitate a 10-lot residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to neighbouring landowners and participant status to the County and another resident.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day merit hearing and declined the Township's request to order the Applicant to hold a public open house, finding the Tribunal's public process sufficient.

The appellants appealed the Town of Huntsville's new Community Planning Permit By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence supporting site-specific modifications for two golf course properties.

The Tribunal found the modifications conformed to the local Official Plans and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal approved the modifications and ordered the balance of the By-law into force, save for the lands of the remaining appellant.

The Appellants appealed the Town of Parry Sound's approval of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 14-unit residential building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the owner of the subject properties, Eco-Development Group Inc. The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a two-day video hearing for the appeal.

The appellant appealed the refusal of minor variances by the Township's Committee of Adjustment for additions to an existing legal non-complying dwelling and dock on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeals were allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of Huntsville and the District of Muskoka to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and draft plan of common element condominium.

The proposed development consists of 21 single detached homes on private services.

The Tribunal approved the settlement reached between the applicant and the District of Muskoka, finding that the proposed instruments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the applicable official plans, and represent good planning, particularly regarding the protection of natural heritage features.

The applicant appealed the City of Greater Sudbury's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-room shared housing facility (rooming house) on a property zoned for low-density residential use.

The applicant argued the proposal supported affordable housing policies in the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for Northern Ontario.

The Tribunal preferred the City's expert planning evidence, finding that the proposal did not conform with the City's Official Plan, was not consistent with provincial policies, and did not represent good land use planning due to site unsuitability and infrastructure deficiencies.

The appeal was dismissed.