Michael Saul Polowin

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed high-rise development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of two towers (38 and 40 storeys) with a public park and privately-owned publicly accessible space.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy and the City's Official Plan, allowing the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the City of Ottawa on a zoning by-law amendment that required the waste storage area for a proposed residential addition to be located within the principal building.

The appellant argued for an external enclosed accessory building for waste storage.

The Tribunal found that the internal option would require an external lift, increase costs, reduce the size of barrier-free units, and result in a sub-optimal basement unit.

The Tribunal concluded that the external enclosed option represented better land use planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the condition was removed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3, which adds the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

SDLP 1887 Orleans Limited requested and was granted party status without opposition.

The parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and a willingness to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation if necessary.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 26, 2023.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The City opposed the development, arguing it did not conform to the Official Plan's height and density hierarchy and failed to provide appropriate transition to the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal found that the Official Plan does not contain an implicit height and density hierarchy, and that the proposed development provides suitable transition through setbacks, stepbacks, and building orientation without relying solely on angular plane analysis.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Zoning By-law Amendment in part and deferred the Site Plan Approval appeal to allow the parties to reach an agreement.

The appellant community association appealed the City of Ottawa's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to permit a six-storey residential care facility.

The appellant argued that the Future Land Use Study was incomplete from a transportation perspective and that the development was premature due to existing transportation deficiencies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed development would have a minimal impact on traffic, that the developer is not responsible for fixing existing municipal transportation deficiencies, and that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of a permit for demolition and new construction under the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District Plan.

The applicants proposed to replace five existing dwellings with two low-rise apartment buildings.

The City and a residents' association opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the heritage character of the area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, with minor alterations to scale, articulation, and landscaping, was suitable and compatible with the cultural heritage landscape.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and directed the City to issue the permits subject to finalization of plans regarding stepbacks, facade variations, and greenspace enhancements.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Upper Hunt Club Community Association against the City's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a residential care facility.

The parties resolved most of the draft Procedural Order but disputed four items on the Issues List.

The Tribunal ruled on the contested issues, striking speculative and redundant language, finalized the Issues List, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a three-tower development.

The City indicated its intent to bring a motion arguing that its new Official Plan ousts the Clergy Principle, which would require the applications to be evaluated under the new plan rather than the former one.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to organize the motion and directed the City to request consolidation of similar appeals for the purpose of the motion.

A Procedural Order was also issued, subject to the outcome of the motion.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a Cannabis Production Facility and reduce setbacks on a rural commercial property.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal, which reuses an existing building and includes an air treatment system, is consistent with provincial policies and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-laws were amended accordingly.

The appellant challenged the legality of a by-law passed by the City of Kingston imposing impost fees for water and wastewater infrastructure under the Municipal Act, 2001.

The appellant argued that such fees could only be imposed under the Development Charges Act, 1997 (DCA), or alternatively, if under the Municipal Act, 2001, then subject to the procedural protections of the DCA, including a right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), which the City could not provide.

The appellant also argued the by-law was illegal under s. 394(1)(e) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as water and wastewater are natural resources.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that municipalities have dual legislative regimes for imposing development fees, and the Municipal Act, 2001, provides a valid basis for the impost fees.

The court clarified that s. 15(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, does not require importing DCA procedural protections, as the two statutes confer different powers and have distinct review mechanisms.

Furthermore, the court found that s. 394(1)(e) does not prohibit fees for infrastructure that transports water and wastewater for ratepayers' benefit.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Bertone Montreal Road LP against the City of Ottawa for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two parties and approved the draft Procedural Order, including a provision allowing participants to refine their statements 45 days before the hearing.

A five-day merits hearing was scheduled for April 2023.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two parties on consent.

The only dispute regarding the draft Procedural Order was whether a participant could submit a refined participant statement 45 days prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the provision, noting it is appropriate for participants to review the approved issues list and refine their statements accordingly.

A five-day merits hearing was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the Town of Greater Napanee's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit a permanent asphalt and ready-mix concrete plant.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a local group, Keep Napanee Great, on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day hearing of the merits.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the community association against the municipality's approval of zoning and official plan amendments for a 12-storey mixed-use development.

The parties agreed to a draft Procedural Order and requested a 4-day hearing.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing to commence on December 12, 2022.

The appellant appealed zoning by-law amendments that limited the aggregate number of bedrooms on low-density residential lots and restricted the height of detached additional residential units to that of other accessory structures.

The appellant argued these restrictions constituted 'people zoning' and conflicted with the Building Code Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the regulations were appropriate performance standards to manage intensity and built form, represented good planning, and were protected from appeal under s. 34(19.1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of an Official Plan Amendment without a hearing under s. 17(45) of the Planning Act.

The appellant argued the amendment was res judicata due to a 2014 OMB decision.

The Tribunal found the proposed development had sufficiently changed, defeating the res judicata claim.

The Tribunal concluded the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant's request for costs was denied as the appellant's conduct was not unreasonable or frivolous.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that upheld an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning approved by the City of Ottawa.

The amendments permitted the development of a warehouse and e-commerce centre on lands adjacent to Highway 416.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no extricable error of law of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to subdivide a property into two lots for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the consents had regard for provincial interests and the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consent subject to conditions and authorizing the requested variances for reduced lot width and area.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Amber Peak Developments Inc. against the City of Kingston's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and corresponding Zoning By-law Amendments.

The Tribunal noted that only issues related to the number of bedrooms and the height of accessory buildings would proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The parties agreed to a two-day video hearing for expert testimony followed by written legal submissions.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and dispensed with the need for a formal Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant minor variances to permit the construction of a seasonal air-inflated sports dome over existing tennis courts.

The requested variances involved building height, setback from the highwater mark, and development within a floodplain overlay.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the uncontested expert evidence demonstrated the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.