Michelle J.T. Cicchino

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence by video on June 22, 2026, to allow time for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Pegasus Development Corporation against the Town of Carleton Place's new Town-wide Development Permit By-law.

The Tribunal granted party status to Inverness Homes Inc., approved the Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on August 10, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for December 8, 2025, regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 3 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The parties advised that settlement discussions are nearing completion and requested one more conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order scheduling a further Case Management Conference for October 15, 2025, regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The scheduling order was made after the parties advised that settlement discussions had advanced.

Multiple appellants appealed the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested a further CMC instead of scheduling merit hearings.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC by videoconference.

This was a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Carleton Place's Official Plan Amendment No. 8.

The Tribunal noted that Pegasus Development Corporation failed to submit a party status request form and was therefore not a party to the appeals.

The Tribunal also determined that Zoning By-law No. 32-2021 was not before it, as it was never appealed, and excluded it from the Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The parties advised that they are engaged in ongoing settlement discussions and requested a further CMC to provide an update.

The Tribunal scheduled a further video CMC for May 27, 2025, and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List if a settlement is not reached.

The Town of Carleton Place brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Pegasus Development Corporation regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 8.

The Town argued that Pegasus lacked standing under s. 17(36) of the Planning Act because it did not make oral or written submissions to Council before the amendment was adopted.

Pegasus contended that its communications with senior municipal staff should be considered submissions to Council under the law of agency.

The Tribunal held that ad hoc meetings and emails with planning staff outside the formal public meeting process do not satisfy the strict statutory requirement of making submissions to Council.

The motion was granted and Pegasus's appeal was dismissed, with leave to request party status to shelter under another valid appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal received updates on settlement discussions and withdrawals, scheduled a three-day merit hearing for the Guibord appeal commencing February 10, 2025, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the Brigil and Youville appeals for February 18, 2025.

The appellant appealed the Town of Carleton Place's Interim Control By-law No. 99-2023, which affected its conditionally approved development permit for a residential and commercial building.

At a settlement hearing, the parties presented a settlement to remove the subject lands from the by-law's 'Strategic Properties' designation and extend the time to satisfy development conditions.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a front-facing attached garage and a 3-metre wide driveway for a proposed three-storey detached dwelling.

The City did not participate in the hearing.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the Streetscape Character Analysis did not accurately reflect the existing neighbourhood character, which already included front-facing garages and driveways.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, concluding they satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Gary Courville against the Municipality of North Grenville's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment.

The amendments were intended to permit a 168-unit residential development on the site of a former public school.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals, approved the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed the 2016 taxation year assessment of a unique waterfront property, arguing the current value should be reduced to $6,700,000 with a further equity adjustment.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) argued the correct current value was the 2012 sale price of $13,000,000.

The Assessment Review Board found that the 2012 arm's-length sale of the subject property, which occurred four months after the valuation day, was the best evidence of its current value.

The Board rejected the appellant's proposed comparable sales due to arbitrary, unquantified adjustments.

The Board also found no evidence to support an equity adjustment, concluding the correct current value for the 2016 taxation year was $13,000,000.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 65-unit multi-residential property for the 2017 to 2022 taxation years.

The parties agreed to use the income approach but disputed the potential gross income and the capitalization rate.

The Assessment Review Board determined the potential gross income by substituting market rents for subsidized units and established a capitalization rate of 7.16% based on comparable properties.

The Board concluded the current value of the property was $10,409,916, which was reduced to $9,577,000 after applying an agreed 8% equitable adjustment, resulting in a reduction from the returned assessment of $9,970,000.

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, a non-profit environmental education centre, sought a declaration that its property was exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The respondent assessment corporation opposed the application, arguing the centre lacked a structured curriculum, regular students, and formal instructors.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the primary purpose of the centre, determined objectively, was educational.

The court held that a flexible approach to the definition of a 'seminary of learning' was appropriate, and the centre's workshops, symposiums, and experiential learning programs sufficiently constituted a focused educational agenda.

The moving parties requested the reinstatement of a withdrawn 2016 property assessment appeal and permission to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year.

The property was sold in 2016, and the former owner had withdrawn the 2016 appeal under the mistaken belief that the new owner could simply take over the proceeding.

The Board found that the new owner was not a party to the 2016 appeal and could not request its reinstatement.

However, the Board granted the former owner's request to reinstate the 2016 appeal, finding it was withdrawn in error, and added the new owner as a party.

The Board denied the new owner's request to file a late appeal for the 2017 taxation year because he failed to meet the requirements of Rule 26, having received the Notice of Assessment but failing to appeal within the statutory timeframe.

The appellant appealed the property tax assessment of a 113-unit multi-residential rental building in Kingston for the 2017 to 2021 taxation years.

The parties agreed that the income approach was the best method for determining the current value, but disagreed on the appropriate capitalization rate and whether the direct comparison approach should be used as a check.

The Assessment Review Board rejected the direct comparison approach due to a lack of similar comparable properties.

After analyzing the comparable sales provided by both experts, the Board determined a base capitalization rate of 5.89%, resulting in an overall capitalization rate of 7.16% and a current value of $20,103,701.

The Board further found that an equitable reduction was required based on the assessment to sales ratio of similar properties, reducing the final assessed value to $18,500,000.

The appellant, a care home operator, unlawfully evicted a non-verbal adult with severe autism without following the procedures in the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the tenant's reinstatement.

The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing procedural unfairness and that the Board lacked statutory authority to order reinstatement under s. 31(1)(f) of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness and holding that a broad interpretation of the Act's remedial provisions permitted the Board to order reinstatement to protect vulnerable tenants from unlawful eviction.

The appellant's land was expropriated by the respondent municipality.

After years of delay and litigation, the appellant rejected a settlement offer of $1.2 million.

The Ontario Municipal Board ultimately awarded compensation of $710,000 and ordered costs against the appellant from the date of the settlement offer.

The appellant appealed, arguing that 'amount offered' under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act refers only to the initial statutory offer under s. 25, and that costs cannot be awarded against an expropriated party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32 encompasses subsequent offers and that the Board retains discretion to award costs against a claimant to encourage settlement and sanction unreasonable conduct.