Lee English

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Soneil Markham Inc. against the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a mixed-use development with multiple towers.

The Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 15-day merit hearing to commence in March 2026, allowing time for ongoing mediation in related appeals.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications to permit two 12-storey apartment buildings and a public park.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

A case management conference was held regarding multiple appeals concerning the North Oakville West Secondary Plan.

The appellants and the Town of Oakville have been engaged in settlement discussions and have reached an agreement in principle on a development concept for the Palermo Village Growth Area.

The parties requested that the finalization of the draft Procedural Order and Issues List be put on hold to allow settlement discussions to advance.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the parties to provide status updates on their respective appeals.

The Tribunal convened a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, with the Township alleging that certain issues raised by the appellants did not comply with the Planning Act regarding consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformity with the District Official Plan.

The appellants argued that a motion on the validity of the Issues List would be an abuse of process.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to address these disputes and directed the provision of updated policy changes.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding four remaining appeals of the 2016 Official Plan for the City of London.

The Tribunal granted requests to adjourn two appeals sine die while related site plan and heritage alteration applications are processed by the City.

For the remaining two appeals, the Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a seven-day hearing on the merits for early 2026.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 633 (Jane Finch Secondary Plan), the appellants confirmed their appeals would proceed on a site-specific basis.

The Tribunal ordered that the unappealed portions of OPA 633 are in force and effect.

The parties requested and were granted an adjournment sine die to allow the appellants to file site-specific applications, with a status update required in six months.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that a settlement had been reached in related appeals concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for the same development.

The Tribunal granted a request to consolidate the present appeal with the related appeals to be heard at the scheduled settlement hearing.

The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties disputed whether certain issues on the draft Issues List complied with the statutory requirements of s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to engage in further discussions and explore Tribunal-led mediation to resolve the Issues List.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing regarding Mineral Aggregate Resource Policies until the Issues List is finalized.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision and order dated November 5, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the title of proceedings and appearances list were amended to correctly identify the applicant as Soneil Markham Inc.

The Township of Muskoka Lakes brought a motion to dismiss a third-party appeal of its new Official Plan by Our Muskoka Stakeholders Association, arguing the appeal was deemed dismissed under the transition provisions of Bill 185 (Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024).

The Tribunal found that while Our Muskoka did not meet the definition of a 'specified person' under the Planning Act, its appeal remained valid under the transition exception in s. 17(36.0.2)(b) because it was appealing the same decision (the approval of the Official Plan) as other valid appellants.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed, allowing the appeal to continue.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by landowners against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 633 concerning the Jane Finch Secondary Plan.

The appellants seek higher proposed heights on their lands.

The Tribunal directed the appellants to provide an issues list and confirm if their appeals can proceed on a site-specific basis, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 2025.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct typographical errors in a decision issued on October 16, 2024.

The amendments included replacing an attachment, correcting the spelling of 'Brampton', and correcting the word 'sized' to 'seized'.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and denied the appellant's request to limit the participant's written statement, finding no statutory requirement for the participant to have made submissions at a public meeting for an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow for mediation in related appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Tricar Properties Limited against the City of Guelph's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted participant status to an additional individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a motion hearing for discovery, and added five additional days to the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that approved minor variances for accessory structures and a reduced front yard setback, but imposed a condition requiring the gratuitous conveyance of land for a road widening.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, relying on established case law, the Tribunal held that the road widening condition was inappropriate because it lacked a reasonable relationship to the requested variances.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized without the road widening condition.

The applicant appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to facilitate a five-storey mixed-use building.

The requested variances included reductions in setbacks, parking, and loading spaces, and increases in floor area ratio.

The City did not call any witnesses.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert planning and traffic engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that two appeals regarding the Town of Oakville's failure to grant final site plan approval for warehouse developments be heard together.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local residents' association and issued a Procedural Order scheduling a 10-day video hearing for January 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals/groups.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to determine the validity of one of the appeals in light of Bill 185.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing until the issues list is finalized, and directed the parties to submit a finalized issues list and draft procedural order prior to the next Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical or typographical error in a previous decision issued on September 13, 2024.

The amendment corrected the video hearing information for a hearing scheduled on April 7, 2025.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The municipality brought a motion during a Case Management Conference requesting that the uncontested portions of its new comprehensive zoning by-law be deemed to have come into force pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act.

Several appellants had filed appeals regarding specific properties.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal granted the motion in part, bringing the by-law into force for all areas except those lands specifically subject to the ongoing appeals.