Marc Kemerer

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision granting the tenant a 30% rent abatement after the landlord removed a roof deck and offered a portion of a shared courtyard in exchange.

The landlord argued the LTB erred in law by finding this was a discontinuance of a facility rather than a mere change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LTB properly applied the relevant legal principles to assess the adequacy of the exchanged facility and made no error of law in concluding the roof deck's removal was an unreasonable discontinuance.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 46-storey mixed-use building.

At the outset, the Tribunal held a motion hearing and determined it lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(50.1) of the Planning Act to consider an expansion of the OPA to include adjacent lands that were not part of the original application or appeal.

On the merits, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in principle, finding that the proposed reclassification to 'Station Area Core' and the 46-storey height were appropriate given the site's proximity to a new LRT station.

The Tribunal also approved the proposed 5.5 m tower setback to the north and 6.0 m base building setback along Bayview Avenue, preferring the applicant's expert evidence over the City's.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed gravel pit expansion, the Chiefs of Ontario brought a motion to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding it in the public interest to adjudicate the issues with fulsome evidence, including from the Chiefs of Ontario, and that the potential prejudice to First Nations communities outweighed any perceived prejudice to the applicant.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on July 2, 2025, regarding an application by V.B. Sand & Gravel Ltd. to amend the Zoning By-law and for an Aggregate Resources Act licence to permit a proposed extraction operation in the Township of Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh.

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 applicant appealed the conditions imposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) on a development permit for an agri-tourism use, specifically an on-farm accommodation and bistro.

The NEC did not participate in the hearing, and another appellant withdrew.

The Hearing Officer accepted the applicant's expert planning evidence that the original conditions were inappropriate, as they attached to the user rather than the use and duplicated municipal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal approved the applicant's Revised Conditions, finding them to represent good planning and the public interest, and confirmed the NEC's decision to issue the permit subject to these new conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Port Colborne's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that included additional visual screening and privacy measures.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies, conforming to local official plans, and representing good planning by encouraging intensification and housing diversity.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law 63-2024, which implements the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing to commence on October 6, 2025, substituted one appellant, and accepted the withdrawal of another.

The applicants appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey residential apartment building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to a ratepayers association and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate its appeal under the Planning Act regarding a zoning by-law amendment with a referral under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A Pit Below Water licence.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, finding that consolidation would provide efficiencies as the matters involve the same property, common issues, and the same witnesses.

A 13-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a 46-storey mixed-use building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals.

The Tribunal also identified a jurisdictional issue regarding the expansion of the OPA lands post-appeal and directed that a motion hearing be held to determine the status of the expanded OPA prior to the merit hearing.

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 issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical or typographical error in the Title of Proceedings of a decision issued on October 15, 2024.

The amendment replaced the Title of Proceedings to accurately reflect the parties and objectors involved in the application for a Class 'A' License under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The applicant sought a Class A licence under the Aggregate Resources Act to operate a quarry in Haldimand County.

Several area residents objected to the application, raising concerns about blasting, dust, noise, groundwater impacts, and traffic.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and several objectors reached a settlement, resulting in revised site plan drawings that included enhanced groundwater monitoring and complaint response protocols.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the official plan, and having appropriate regard for the statutory requirements.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to issue the licence subject to the revised site plan conditions.

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.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a gravel pit expansion, the Tribunal heard two motions.

A motion to adjourn the CMC to allow the Chiefs of Ontario to assess consultation adequacy was dismissed, as they were not a party and no prejudice would result from proceeding.

A motion by the applicant to consolidate the Planning Act appeals with a newly referred Aggregate Resources Act matter was granted, as the matters relate to the same property and proposal, and consolidation would ensure efficiency and avoid predetermination of issues.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 63-2024, which implements the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan.

The City requested additional time to continue discussions with the appellants to scope issues and explore potential settlements.

The Tribunal directed the City to file a revised draft Procedural Order by December 2024, scheduled a third Case Management Conference for July 2025, and set a 10-day hearing for October 2025.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a tourist establishment and accessory dwelling on their property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement supporting the amendment.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit the expansion of a mineral aggregate operation.

At a case management conference, the applicant requested a hearing date be set despite a concurrent Aggregate Resources Act application not yet being referred to the Tribunal.

A party opposed setting a date, arguing the constitutional duty to consult First Nations had not been met.

The Tribunal found it premature to set a hearing date due to uncertainty regarding the scope of issues and directed a third case management conference.

The Tribunal also directed that any constitutional arguments must be brought by formal written motion with proper notice.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a tourist establishment.

Prior to the hearing, the applicants and the Township reached a settlement.

At the hearing, three individuals sought party status to oppose the settlement, raising environmental, property value, and Indigenous consultation concerns, and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Tribunal applied the Oakville factors and denied party status, finding their participation as parties was not necessary to adjudicate the issues and would prejudice the applicants.

The individuals were granted participant status instead, and the merit hearing was adjourned to allow them time to file participant statements.