Liam Valgardson

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 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 Tribunal considered a proposed partial settlement regarding appeals of the new Town of Collingwood Official Plan.

The settlement involved modifications to general policies to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, particularly concerning natural heritage and infrastructure.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the modifications, finding them consistent with provincial policy and good land use planning, without prejudice to remaining site-specific appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Welland's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments seek to permit three high-rise residential buildings and two stacked townhouse blocks.

The Tribunal granted party status to a residents' group and participant status to two individuals.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled for October 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved to govern the proceedings.

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 sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that allowed the withdrawal of a draft plan of subdivision appeal by a neighboring developer.

The applicant argued that the withdrawal, which occurred on the eve of the hearing, breached its right to procedural fairness by preventing it from arguing for a cost-sharing condition.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, finding that the issue of procedural fairness is a question of law that should be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism requiring leave under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

In the alternative, the court found no breach of procedural fairness, as the withdrawal of the appeal was expressly contemplated by the Planning Act and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to compel private parties to enter into a cost-sharing agreement.

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.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. against the Town of Collingwood's refusal of applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 69-unit residential development.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties submitted a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the updated Procedural Order and scheduled a 30-day merits hearing to commence in January 2026.

The Town of Wasaga Beach brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Achille Developments Ltd. concerning applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Town argued the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under section 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act because the Town Council passed a resolution categorically refusing to assume any public works or enter into development agreements for the proposed subdivision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that a municipal resolution refusing to provide servicing does not automatically eliminate the reasonable prospect of success of an appeal on land use planning grounds, and the appellant is entitled to a full hearing on the merits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding municipality in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a 69-unit residential development, the Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation requested party status to address flood plain protection issues.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing it would duplicate efforts, while the Town and County supported it.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Foundation, finding it had key interests and its intended expert evidence was necessary.

Participant status was also granted on consent to three individuals.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

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 Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision dated January 15, 2025.

The amendment replaced Paragraph 66 to accurately reflect the evidence of a witness regarding the provision of affordable housing and the absence of a policy mandating it on a site-specific basis.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-density residential development.

The City opposed the development, raising concerns about shadow impacts on adjacent parklands, park grading, the lack of affordable housing, and the adequacy of the unit mix.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the shadow impacts were minimal, the park grading was acceptable, and there was no statutory or policy requirement to mandate affordable housing on a site-specific basis.

The Tribunal also found the proposed unit mix to be adequate and transit-supportive.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit 10 back-to-back townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a draft Zoning By-law Amendment with Holding Provisions.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the submission of the final form of the by-law.

The Town of Collingwood brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. regarding a proposed 69-unit residential development.

The Town argued the appeals had no reasonable prospect of success due to a potential Ministry of Transportation bypass and concerns from the local conservation authority regarding a proposed watercourse crossing.

The Tribunal found that the potential bypass was not a 'planned corridor' under the Provincial Planning Statement and that the conservation authority's concerns did not render the appeals hopeless.

The Tribunal also denied the Town's alternative request to phase the hearing, finding that a single comprehensive hearing would be more efficient.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development with 33- and 44-storey towers.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part and the planning instruments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending fulfillment of specified conditions.