Nancy Smith

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's approval of Zoning By-laws Nos. 24-051 and 24-052, which introduced new electric vehicle parking standards.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert evidence in land use planning and transportation engineering supporting the proposed amendments.

The Tribunal found the amendments, including transition provisions for recent zoning approvals, represented good planning, were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

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 moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither responding party filed a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a residential development of up to 322 units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans, representing good land use planning.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to have five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals (Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc., Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc., and Whitechurch Landowners Group Inc.) heard together.

The parties consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard at the commencement of the previously scheduled Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the first scheduled merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the hearing of five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the common issues together was appropriate to ensure consistent adjudication and efficiency without prejudicing the individual site-specific hearings.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Hamilton's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment that would facilitate an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to one group of landowners and participant status to 24 individuals and groups.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing date until the parties submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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.

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 appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to grant a conditional development permit for an on-farm diversified use (an event venue) on agricultural lands.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted agreed-upon terms and conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Hearing Officer found the proposed use, subject to the agreed conditions, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformed to the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the permit was confirmed with the additional conditions.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. against the City of Hamilton for failing to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for an urban boundary expansion.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and requested an eight-week hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing to commence in April 2026 and issued the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the proceedings.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on April 7, 2025.

The hearing concerns appeals related to the City of Niagara Falls' Employment Lands Strategy, a residential plan of subdivision, and associated official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day hearing regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal or neglect to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the hearing.

The Tribunal issued an order amending a previously issued Procedural Order on consent of the parties.

The underlying appeals relate to applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use community consisting of 1,344 dwelling units in the City of Niagara Falls.

The amended Procedural Order governs the required procedures leading up to a 5-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 24, 2025.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the County of Norfolk's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision for a 102-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Lafarge Canada Inc. and participant status to Norfolk Disposal Services Ltd. on consent.

A five-day hearing was scheduled for March 2025, and the Tribunal approved the parties' draft Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals brought by Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. against the City of Hamilton for failing to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment applications for an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and organizations.

A request for party status by Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc. was denied, as the Tribunal found their involvement would prejudice the appellant and not assist in adjudicating the issues pertaining to the subject lands.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to grant a consent to sever a property into two lots, each to be serviced by an advanced treatment septic system.

The City argued that its Hydrogeological Guidelines prohibited the use of advanced treatment systems to justify undersized lots due to concerns over long-term performance and enforcement.

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines did not form part of the Official Plan and were merely an interpretive tool.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that advanced treatment systems are reliable and that adequate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms exist, such as consent agreements registered on title.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent granted subject to conditions, including a monitoring agreement and financial securities.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.