Meredith Baker

The Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians appealed the Minister's approval of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 45) for lands in Kitchener.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine the validity of the appeal because the Six Nations had not made oral or written submissions to City Council prior to the OPA's adoption, as required by s. 17(36) of the Planning Act.

The Six Nations argued that the Minister failed to discharge the constitutional duty to consult and that the Tribunal should interpret the appeal provisions liberally.

The Tribunal found that the statutory requirement under s. 17(36) is clear and non-discretionary.

Because the Six Nations did not make the required submissions to Council, they lacked standing to appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a commercial plaza.

At the first case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal approved the draft procedural order and scheduled a second case management conference and a three-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on an official plan amendment application.

The parties disputed the inclusion of a note in the Draft Procedural Order that would require parties raising technical issues to call expert evidence.

The Tribunal agreed with the added parties that the note was inappropriate, as the Rules of Practice and Procedure do not mandate calling an expert witness to support an issue, and parties may rely on cross-examination.

The note was removed, and a 14-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The City of Burlington requested a review of a Tribunal decision that refused to dismiss an appeal of the new City Official Plan.

The original decision held that the appeal survived the sale of the subject property because it was 'tied to the land', and directed the City to contact the new owner.

The Tribunal Chair granted the request for review, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Chair held that while Tribunal decisions regarding permitted land uses run with the land (in rem), the right to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal is a personal right (in personam).

The original decision was varied to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to a 4-day hearing scheduled for June 1, 2026.

The hearing concerns appeals against the approval of a Development Permit Application to construct a two-storey single-dwelling, install a septic system, and reconfigure an asphalt driveway on a vacant lot under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on an official plan amendment application for a mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 26 individuals and party status to adjacent neighbours.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to review the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's approval of a development permit for a two-storey single dwelling.

Two appellants withdrew their appeals, and the remaining appellants were represented by one self-represented individual.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day merit hearing and directed the parties to submit an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 1238576 Ontario Limited concerning the failure of the Township of Centre Wellington to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a residential subdivision.

Following an adjournment of the originally scheduled hearing, the Tribunal issued a revised Procedural Order setting out the schedule and requirements leading up to a 5-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 5, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 1238576 Ontario Limited under section 34(11) of the Planning Act, following the Township of Centre Wellington's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to rezone open space to a residential zone to create a woodland corridor.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for May 2026 and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy appealed a condition of provisional consent imposed by the Town of Mono's Committee of Adjustment that required the payment of a 5% Parkland Levy.

The consent allowed the creation of a new lot with an existing dwelling, leaving the retained lot for the extension of the Bruce Trail.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and removed the condition, finding that the levy was unreasonable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act because the severance did not create a need for additional parkland.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that imposing the levy on a recognized public body whose mandate is to provide public recreational trails was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and local official plans.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3-storey mixed-use building with 42 residential units and ground-floor commercial space.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised development concept.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Regional Municipality of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against OPA 119 and ZBL 418.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Canadian National Railway Company, substituted Inaria Burlington Inc. for Burlington Healthcare Centre Inc., and scheduled a motion hearing to consider dismissing certain appeals and addressing potential settlements.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's refusal of minor variances required to legalize the conversion of an existing medical office to a detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the Town of The Blue Mountains' Development Charges By-law No. 2024-29.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence in March 2026.

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

The central issues involved transportation matters, specifically parking stall sizes, parking ratios, and site access onto a major arterial road.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's transportation expert, finding the proposed parking stall sizes and ratios appropriate and the right-in, right-out access configuration safe.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of performance standards for non-residential uses.

The applicant appealed the City of Niagara Falls' failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use residential community on lands partially identified by the City and Region for future employment uses.

The Tribunal found that the applications were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement's requirement to plan for and protect employment areas.

The Tribunal declined to apply the Clergy Principle, finding that the applicant's attempt to rely on older policies was premature and contrary to the public interest in securing necessary employment lands.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments refused.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy appealed a condition of provisional consent regarding the creation of a new rural residential lot in the Town of Mono.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, setting the hearing dates, filing deadlines, and the issues list, which primarily concerns the appropriateness of a parkland dedication condition.

This was a status hearing regarding multiple appeals against the Region of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 119 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal deferred a party status request from Canadian National Railway Company to the next Case Management Conference to allow parties time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 16, 2025.

The County of Brant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by the appellant regarding an Engineering Administration Fee of $775,879.67 levied during a draft plan of subdivision approval process.

The County argued the fee was imposed under the Municipal Act and thus outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 69(3) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the fee evolved from previous by-laws as a fee for processing a planning application and therefore fell within its jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the appeal was scheduled for a hearing on the merits.