Marshall Green

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment under section 17(36) of the Planning Act.

The appellant opposed a policy requiring a master plan and urban design brief prior to any zoning by-law amendment.

During the conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring landowner whose lands were directly impacted by the disputed policy.

The parties advised the Tribunal that a tentative settlement had been reached, and the Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Approval to permit a 28-unit cluster dwelling development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement regarding the Zoning By-Law Amendment.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The Tribunal approved the amendment but withheld its final order pending the site's exemption from an Interim Control By-law related to water servicing capacity, and adjourned the site plan appeal sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. against the Town of Collingwood's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Silver Glen Condo Corporation and three individuals.

The applicant presented a descoped appeal proposal, and the Tribunal directed the provision of updated mapping.

A follow-up Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

Beeton Meadows Holdings Inc. appealed the County of Simcoe's non-decision regarding a portion of the Town of New Tecumseth's new Official Plan.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the schedule and replace the Low-Density designation with an Urban Residential designation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed modification is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a non-decision by the County of Simcoe on a site-specific official plan amendment.

The County brought a motion, on consent, to consolidate this appeal with an existing site-specific appeal concerning the County's Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation motion.

The Tribunal declined to issue an order approving the balance of the Township's Official Plan without a formal written motion, noting jurisdictional uncertainties under section 17(40) of the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the respondent's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The applications seek to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for July 2021 and a 25-day hearing for February 2022.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to adopt a transitional regulation exempting a proposed waste management facility from the natural heritage policies of the 2019 Growth Plan.

The applicant also sought to quash a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) decision that struck its appeal issues based on this regulation.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister exceeded his authority under s. 19(1)(d) of the Places to Grow Act, 2005, as the regulation did not address a genuine transitional matter but rather granted an exemption to key policies adopted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The regulation was declared ultra vires, and the LPAT decision was set aside and remitted.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that required it to contribute to the maintenance and repair of a haul route in a neighbouring municipality as a condition for an aggregate quarry licence.

The moving party argued the OMB lacked jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Municipal Act, and related regulations to impose such a condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of its broad jurisdiction to impose conditions regarding haul routes was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that required it to contribute to the maintenance and repair costs of a haul route in a neighbouring municipality as a condition of its quarry licence.

The moving party argued the OMB lacked jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Municipal Act, and related regulations to impose such a condition.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of its home statutes and related legislation was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision that rescinded a building permit issued by the Chief Building Official (CBO) for the construction of a riding arena on a property in the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appeal judge had found that the arena was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law and that the CBO failed to consider the Official Plan's major development policies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the appeal judge erred by applying a correctness standard instead of reasonableness to the CBO's interpretation of the home by-law.

The Court found the CBO's conclusion that the arena was a permitted principal agricultural building was reasonable and correct.

Furthermore, the Court held that conformity with the Official Plan is not 'other applicable law' under the Building Code Act that would justify refusing a permit.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for the indoor and outdoor areas of a restaurant.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application.

Several residents initially objected to the application, believing the new establishment would be similar to the previous noisy tenant.

However, after learning the applicant intended to operate a high-end dining restaurant, many objectors withdrew their concerns and supported the application.

No objectors attended the hearing.

The Board found that the objectors failed to satisfy their burden of proving that issuing the licence was not in the public interest.

The application was approved subject to standard clearances.