Lisa Scheulderman

The Applicants brought a motion challenging the Appellants' standing to appeal a zoning by-law amendment that permitted an event venue on the Applicants' lands.

The Appellants argued they had standing under s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Planning Act because they held a registered easement over the rezoned lands for a water line.

The Tribunal applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that the easement did not confer ownership of the servient tenement.

As the Appellants were not registered owners of the lands to which the by-law applied, they lacked standing.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development.

The sole remaining issue was whether the development would negatively impact the Garden Hill Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI).

Prior to the re-hearing, the Ministry of Natural Resources adjusted the ANSI boundary, removing the subject property.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the development would have no negative impacts, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law amendment that would permit an event venue on the subject lands.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant challenged the validity of the appeal, arguing the appellants are not registered owners but only hold easements over the lands.

The Tribunal deferred requests for participant status and directed that a written motion be held to determine whether an easement interest satisfies the appellant requirements under s. 34(19) 2.2 of the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for a 495-unit residential development.

On consent, the Tribunal granted party status to three entities.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the procedures leading up to and including a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 20, 2025.

The hearing concerns an appeal regarding the failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment to permit a 10-lot subdivision on rural lands.

The Appellant appealed the District Municipality of Muskoka's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment to permit a 10-lot rural estate subdivision.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to five individuals who raised common concerns.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for October 2025.

The appellant appealed the Town's passing of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit a mixed-use commercial and residential redevelopment of an underutilized shopping centre.

The appellant argued the development was incompatible with surrounding residences, lacked affordable housing, and would cause nuisance and shadowing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the uncontested expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning by facilitating appropriate intensification.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the County's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a 163-unit residential development.

The parties requested deadlines to either finalize a settlement or submit a draft Procedural Order for a merits hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update by January 14, 2022, with either a settlement agreement or a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant, Steve Maynard, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his application to quash five municipal by-laws.

The application judge had found that the challenge to the by-laws, based on their alleged inconsistency with a provincial policy statement and non-conformity with an official plan, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), now the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, holding that it was plain and obvious that the LPAT (or its successor) had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicants sought a minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback to construct a garden room addition replacing an existing deck.

The Committee of Adjustment authorized the variance.

A neighbour appealed, arguing the variance was not needed, not minor, and would set a precedent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding it met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also denied the applicants' request for costs, finding the appellant's conduct was reasonable and appropriate.

The appellant landlord applied to the Landlord and Tenant Board to terminate the respondents' tenancies of two cottages for his children's use.

The respondents claimed they owned the cottages and only leased the land.

The Board determined it had jurisdiction to decide the ownership issue, found that the respondents owned the cottages, and dismissed the eviction applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the landlord's appeal, holding that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine ownership for the purpose of the Residential Tenancies Act, did not breach procedural fairness, and correctly concluded that the Act superseded the common law of fixtures.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that struck 8 of 15 issues from a draft Issues List during a case management conference.

The moving parties argued they were denied procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that it was premature, without prejudice to the moving parties raising the issues at an appropriate time in the future.