Nancy Smith

The City of Burlington brought an uncontested motion for partial approval of its new Official Plan.

The motion sought approval for policies that were either not subject to appeal or modified to reflect existing site-specific approvals from the 1997 Official Plan.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the City's Senior Planner, the Tribunal found that the policies satisfied all statutory tests, were consistent with provincial policies, represented good planning, and were in the public interest.

The motion for partial approval was granted.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential redevelopment consisting of single detached dwellings, street townhouses, and condominium townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the instruments approved subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the Region of Niagara's decision to approve, with modifications, the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan Amendment No. 147 (OPA 147), which addresses the conversion of Employment Lands.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered and granted several requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate on a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to coincide with a related zoning by-law appeal.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit an infill development of 30 residential units, including stacked and street-fronting townhouses.

The City opposed the applications solely on urban design and compatibility grounds, arguing the stacked townhouses did not fit the neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the City's compatibility analysis was too narrow and rigidly applied.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed development was sufficiently compatible with the broader neighbourhood, satisfied all statutory tests, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for 58 detached residential dwellings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning and transportation evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed residential subdivision on a heritage property, the Tribunal considered a request by adjacent property owners to change their status from Participant to Party.

The Tribunal granted the request, finding their presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues, but restricted them from raising new issues.

The Tribunal also finalized the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on March 18, 2024, regarding an appeal by the applicant for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 9-storey apartment building in the City of Mississauga.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment No. 119.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in the appearances section and schedule of a previous decision.

During the CMC, the Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Fairview LP, set procedural dates for the City's anticipated Motion for Partial Approval, and converted a scheduled 10-day hearing for Phase 1C (Aggregates) into a one-day written hearing to consider a settlement.

The Tribunal also directed the City to initiate the mediation assessment process for unresolved policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal granted party status to a non-appellant, set procedural dates for the City's anticipated Motion for Partial Approval, and converted a scheduled 10-day hearing for Phase 1C (Aggregates) into a one-day written hearing following a settlement between the parties.

The Tribunal also directed the City to initiate the mediation assessment process for remaining unapproved policies.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframe.

The applications propose a nine-storey mixed-use building.

The parties advised they are awaiting assessment for Tribunal-led mediation and requested the scheduling of a hearing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a nine-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Emshih Developments Inc. against the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a commercial development.

The parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to inform it as soon as possible if a settlement is reached prior to the scheduled five-day merit hearing in February 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by 10184217 Canada Corporation against the City of Cambridge's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal concerns a proposed infill development of 30 residential units consisting of stacked and freehold townhouses.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and key dates leading up to the video hearing scheduled for November 6, 2023.

The City of Hamilton appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey single detached dwelling.

The requested variances included reductions to front, side, and rear yard setbacks, and an increase in maximum lot coverage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal in part, finding that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed with the Growth Plan.

The variances were authorized subject to a condition that the development be generally in keeping with the submitted site plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Branthaven Creditview Inc. concerning a proposed 60-unit residential development in Brampton.

The parties presented a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

After minor revisions to incorporate concerns from the Credit Valley Residents Association, all parties consented to the documents.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming hearing on the merits.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment No. 119.

The City provided a status update on its efforts to bring the Official Plan into conformity with Regional Official Plan Amendments 48 and 49 and Provincial Bill 23.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for November 2023, dispensed with the existing Phasing Plan, and cancelled the Phase 1B Natural Heritage hearing to allow parties to focus on settlements and uncontested portions of the Official Plan.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Solmar (Niagara 2) Inc. against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's failure to make decisions on planning applications for a residential subdivision on the Rand Estate.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Niagara Parks Commission and abutting property owners on consent.

The Tribunal deferred a request to consolidate the planning appeals with newly filed heritage appeals until the latter are properly before the Tribunal.

Finally, the Tribunal denied a request by Save Our Rand Estate to hold the eight-week merit hearing in person, finding that a video hearing offers the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Losani Homes against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List.

Adjacent property owners, who were previously granted Party status, agreed to change their status to Participants.

The Tribunal confirmed the five-day hearing will commence on November 20, 2023.

The Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a commercial development.

The Tribunal scheduled a fifth CMC and a five-day merit hearing, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Town and an intervenor association brought motions for costs against the owners after the owners withdrew their objections to notices of intention to designate heritage attributes under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The withdrawal occurred five weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to award costs in a proceeding even if the matter was withdrawn before a hearing on the merits.

However, applying the high threshold for costs under Rule 23.9, the Tribunal found that the owners' conduct in withdrawing the objections and their stated reasons for doing so were not clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motions for costs were dismissed.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Save Our Rand Estate Association brought motions for costs against the Owners after the Owners withdrew their objections to Notices of Intention to Designate under the Ontario Heritage Act shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The moving parties argued the late withdrawal and the Owners' conduct throughout the proceeding were unreasonable and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that while it has jurisdiction to award costs even when a matter is withdrawn prior to a hearing, the Owners' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motions for costs were dismissed.