Marc Kemerer

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a special events venue and culinary-related activities as on-farm diversified uses.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that introduced additional regulations, including limits on temporary structure floor area, hours of operation, and amplified sound.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised amendment was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional and local official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

This was the first Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 34-storey mixed-use building at 1840 Bayview Avenue in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 19 individuals and associations, and party status to Glaze Dev LP and the Broadway Area Residents Association.

A 10-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on May 27, 2024, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 367-unit residential apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments, finding they represent good planning and are in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a consent application to create a new residential water access lot on an island property.

Several neighbours brought a motion for party status, which the Tribunal dismissed, granting them participant status instead.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed consent, subject to conditions implementing an Environmental Impact Study and zoning requirements, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's refusal of a temporary use zoning by-law amendment to permit the continued operation of a portable dry batch concrete production plant and the addition of a second plant.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a temporary use by-law that would expire after three years or when the lands are required for the Highway 413 project.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, Growth Plan, and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

Hydro One Networks Inc. appealed a decision denying its claim for a permanent prescriptive easement over a road on the respondent's land, which provides access to its transmission lines.

The application judge had found Hydro One's use was not "as of right" or "continuous." The Court of Appeal found that the application judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the frequency and nature of Hydro One's use, which was sufficient to meet the "continuous" requirement.

The Court also determined that Hydro One's post-2008 interactions with the respondent, aimed at accommodation, did not negate the "as of right" character of its use established prior to the land's registration under the Land Titles Act in 2008.

The appeal was allowed, and the prescriptive easement was declared.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's judicial review application, the court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the respondent's partial indemnity costs.

On consent of the parties, costs were fixed at $30,000, payable by the applicant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a non-decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 348-unit residential apartment building in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties, noting that the applicant's development plans had been revised and may continue to change through ongoing discussions.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies, represents an appropriate level of intensification along a transit corridor, and is in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle.

The applicant sought judicial review of a municipal council decision upholding a repair order issued against her for dumping sand on her shoreline property in contravention of a site alteration by-law.

The applicant argued that the alterations were historical, fell under provincial jurisdiction, and that the council breached procedural fairness by not providing written reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Township had concurrent jurisdiction, the decision was reasonable based on the evidence of by-law contravention, and the council's process met the requirements of procedural fairness for an administrative municipal decision.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit reduced front lot line setbacks for a partially constructed porch platform and proposed ornamental structures on a residential property.

The Town did not appear at the hearing.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the existing dwelling already had a legal non-complying setback and the additions would not adversely impact the streetscape.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the continued use of an existing portable dry batch concrete production plant and to add a second plant.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to adopt a site-specific official plan amendment, a zoning by-law amendment, and to make a decision on four consent applications to create new non-waterfront lots on a privately maintained road.

The applicant argued the lots would provide affordable housing for the local Metis Nation community.

The Township opposed the applications on the basis that the official plan only permits new lot creation in settlement areas or on recreational waterways.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the applications align with the provincial planning mandate to increase housing supply, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represent good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the expansion of an existing cottage on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing, agreeing to the variances subject to a landscape restoration plan.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Midland's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 6-storey hotel and commercial uses.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested land use planning evidence that the proposed site plan represents good planning, subject to the approval of minor variances for height and loading spaces.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site plan, withholding its final order until the minor variances are approved and a site plan agreement is executed.

The applicant appealed a condition of a provisional consent to sever a surplus farm dwelling that limited the severed parcel to 3.5 acres.

The applicant sought a 10-acre parcel to operate a market gardening business.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that a 10-acre severance would contribute to the fragmentation of agricultural land and that the 3.5-acre limit was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was dismissed and the conditions remained in effect.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by the applicant for the failure of the municipality to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within 90 days.

The statutory parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to abutting property owners, and participant status to several individuals.

A one-day settlement hearing was scheduled.

The City of Burlington brought a motion seeking partial approval to bring into effect portions of its new Official Plan that were not subject to site-specific appeals.

The motion was opposed by Nelson Aggregates Co. and the Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, who argued that the motion materials did not accurately reflect all appealed sections and that partial approval without transition provisions would cause uncertainty.

The Tribunal found the respondent's grounds insufficient, noting that partial approval allows the planning process to move forward and that transition provisions do not override the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion, confirming the unappealed policies in full force and effect.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the appellants and their representatives following the dismissal of a consent appeal.

The Tribunal found that the appellants and their representatives, who were deemed indirect parties due to their collective interest and orchestration of the appeal, engaged in conduct that was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Tribunal awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the appellants and the indirect parties jointly and severally, finding their behaviour to be an abuse of process.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a mixed-use building at 4101 Rutherford Road.

The proposal sought to increase the maximum permitted building height from 4 storeys to 6 storeys and the floor space index from 1.5 to 2.75.

The City opposed the applications, arguing the development was incompatible with the surrounding low-rise residential neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the unique locational characteristics of the site and the proposal's design allowed for better planning outcomes while respecting the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in principle, and adjourned the Site Plan appeal.