Susan Smith

The appellant appealed the City of Waterloo's zoning by-law amendment to the Ontario Land Tribunal, seeking site-specific exemptions for a proposed residential subdivision.

The disputed exemptions involved reduced side yard setbacks for certain lots and permitted porch and balcony encroachments into the front yard for cluster developments.

The City opposed the exemptions, citing concerns over grading, drainage, snow storage, neighbourhood character, and the implications of a new provincial regulation (O. Reg. 257/25).

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, preferring the appellant's expert evidence that the reduced setbacks and encroachments would not cause adverse impacts, would maintain neighbourhood character, and would facilitate a compact, efficient development in conformity with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appellant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use, master-planned community with approximately 1,800 residential units.

The Tribunal found that the proposed 'Mixed-Use High Density Residential' designation was appropriate and ordered a minimum requirement of 3,000 square metres of non-residential gross floor area.

The Tribunal also approved requested relief for building heights and tower floorplates, finding that detailed urban design, transportation, and parkland dedication matters would be appropriately addressed through the subsequent site plan approval process.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised instruments with modifications.

The City of Waterloo sought and was granted interlocutory statutory and quia timet injunctions to restrain "persons unknown" from violating the City's Nuisance Party By-law in connection with anticipated unsanctioned St. Patrick’s Day street parties.

The court found a clear breach of the by-law, significant unrecoverable public costs, and a high probability of irreparable harm.

The decision reviews the legal standards for statutory and quia timet injunctions, the public interest in enforcement, and the limited impact on Charter rights.

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

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 25-storey building with 289 dwelling units.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with the applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

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 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 applicant sought resolution of a dispute with the Chief Building Official regarding the proposed sanitary and storm services for a new 12-storey residential building.

The proposed design connected the building's services to municipal mains through existing private sewers located on separate properties.

The Building Code Commission ruled that the proposed design does not comply with Article 7.1.5.4. of the Building Code, which requires piping in any building to be connected to public services separately from piping of any other building, as the exceptions for buildings on the same property did not apply.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for appeals brought by 115 Bridgeport Inc. and 1648386 Ontario Ltd. against the City of Waterloo's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use residential and commercial development.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and filing dates leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 17, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Drewlo Holdings Inc. against the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and The Club Willowells, and participant status to 65 Northfield Drive Inc. A request for party status by 2439675 Ontario Inc. and 2439672 Ontario Inc. was deferred to a second Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal also scheduled an 18-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development with three residential towers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that revised the proposal, including adjusting tower heights and widths, and reducing parking rates.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the failure of the City of Waterloo and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit an 18-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region for the Zoning By-law Amendment matter and participant status to a local resident.

A 15-day hearing of the merits was scheduled, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was approved to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The parties informed the Tribunal of ongoing settlement discussions and requested the scheduling of a 14-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the proceedings.

The Appellants sought approvals for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plans of Subdivision to facilitate a large residential development.

The central issue was whether a 14-unit portion of the development (Block 1 Stage 5), which required a private roadway through a Natural Heritage Feature and Area (NHFA), should be permitted.

The Tribunal denied the development of Block 1 Stage 5, finding that the roadway would negatively impact the NHFA's ecological functions and wildlife linkages, rendering it inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also reviewed various conditions of Draft Plans approval, striking down conditions that unlawfully required the developer to fund non-local services or convey lands for purely environmental purposes without compensation.

The balance of the development was approved in principle, subject to resolving parkland dedication requirements.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 8185 Bridgeport Inc. against the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The applications propose a mixed-use development with three residential towers.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 14-day video hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Waterloo Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent application to sever a residential property into three lots.

The appellant argued the severance was incompatible with the neighbourhood and failed procedurally.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence from the applicant and the City that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and complied with the Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and granted the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a high-rise residential redevelopment.

The parties reached a settlement proposing two 24-storey towers and the removal of a heritage building, with community benefits provided in exchange for increased density.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and representing good planning.

The applicants filed human rights applications alleging discrimination with respect to services by the respondents.

A summary hearing was convened by teleconference to determine if the applications had no reasonable prospect of success.

During the hearing, one applicant repeatedly interrupted, made inappropriate comments about opposing counsel and the Tribunal, and ultimately left the call, refusing to allow the other applicant to represent him.

The second applicant then left the call without explanation.

After waiting 15 minutes, the adjudicator reconvened the hearing and dismissed the applications as abandoned.

The applicant, who uses a motorized wheelchair, alleged discrimination on the basis of disability regarding the frequency of accessible bus service provided by the respondent municipality.

When the respondent increased overall bus service frequency to 20 minutes, it did not have enough low floor buses to provide 20-minute accessible service, resulting in accessible service remaining at 40-minute intervals.

The Tribunal found prima facie discrimination but concluded the respondent had accommodated the applicant to the point of undue hardship.

The Tribunal considered the respondent's ongoing fleet replacement program, the cost and delay in acquiring new low floor buses, and the availability of alternative transit services, ultimately dismissing the application.