Nancy Smith

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's Parkland Dedication By-law No. 62-2022 under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

At the Case Management Conference, the City advised that it was preparing a new Parkland Dedication By-law expected to be presented to City Council in July 2023, which may address the appellants' concerns.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 8, 2023, to update the Tribunal on the status of the new by-law and settlement discussions.

A case management conference was held regarding appeals by 1583123 Ontario Inc. against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for two proximate properties.

The applicant requested that the appeals for both properties be heard together due to their similarities, shared expert witnesses, and identical policy regimes.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the hearings and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Miss BJL Corp. against the City of Mississauga for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframes.

The applications seek to permit a 9-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Peel on consent.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions pending a resubmission, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 20, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications propose 251 townhouse units.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a seven-day video hearing to commence on July 17, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding an appeal of the City of Hamilton's Official Plan Amendment No. 17 UHOP by the appellant.

The parties resolved their differences regarding the order of witnesses and submitted a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by 1376412 Ontario Ltd. (Zeina Homes) against the City of Hamilton's refusal of applications to amend the Zoning By-law and for a proposed Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit an 18-lot subdivision and a stormwater management facility block.

The procedural order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties and participants, the issues list, the order of evidence, and a summary of filing dates.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Official Plan Amendment No. 17.

The Tribunal ordered the substitution of Losani Homes (Winona) Ltd. as the appellant in place of 783878 Ontario Ltd. following a change in property ownership.

The Tribunal also scheduled a five-day hearing for the Losani Homes appeal and provided directions for the finalization of a Procedural Order for the remaining appeal by Peter Djeneralovic.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and the Region's failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 36-unit residential development.

A self-represented party raised concerns regarding rail shunting noise and the proposed Class 4 noise designation, but provided no expert evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and noise evidence that the proposal is consistent with provincial policies, conforms to the official plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, approving the zoning amendment and draft plan subject to conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 172-unit residential subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Save Our Rand Estate Inc. and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, and participant status to several community groups and individuals on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order, and an eight-week hearing was set for spring 2024.

The Appellant brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed its appeal of the City of St. Catharines' Official Plan Amendment No. 26 in full, and sought a stay of the OPA.

The Appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated rules of natural justice, and made errors of law by dismissing the appeal in full when the responding parties had only sought partial dismissal.

The Tribunal found the Appellant failed to establish a convincing and compelling case under Rule 25.7 that the Tribunal made any of the enumerated errors.

The motion for review and request for a stay were dismissed.

At a second Case Management Conference, the applicant requested to consolidate its appeals regarding site-specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments with its appeal of the City's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal denied the consolidation request because proper notice had not been provided to the parties in the new Official Plan appeal.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide proper notice so the consolidation request could be considered at the next scheduled Case Management Conference for the new Official Plan appeal.

The appellant brought a motion for costs against the County of Norfolk following an appeal regarding a zoning by-law and official plan amendment to permit a 6-storey residential apartment building.

The appellant argued that the County's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious due to changes in its position on servicing, affordable housing, and urban design, as well as its rejection of settlement offers and pursuit of an infeasible waterfront trail.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the County's conduct did not rise to the level of being seriously unreasonable or warranting a costs award under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's new Official Plan, Official Plan Amendment 119, and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal approved a Master Procedural Order setting out a phased hearing plan and approved the Procedural Order for the Phase 1A hearing on agriculture issues, scheduling it for April 2023.

The appellant appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 26, which converted certain employment lands to alternative uses.

Several parties brought motions to dismiss the appeal under section 17(45) of the Planning Act, arguing that the appellant's issues were statute-barred because the notice of appeal failed to explain how the decision was inconsistent with or failed to conform to provincial plans, as required by section 17(37.1).

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the notice of appeal lacked the required explanations and that the appellant could not expand its appeal beyond the initial submission.

The Tribunal granted the motions and dismissed the appeal without a full hearing.

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 large-scale neighbourhood commercial development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Regional Municipality of Halton was granted party status on consent.

The parties requested a second Case Management Conference to allow for further discussions, which the Tribunal scheduled for June 17, 2022.

The appellants appealed the County's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted an accessory residential use on the second floor of an existing commercial marina building located on hazard lands.

The appellants argued the approval was premature and unsafe due to flooding risks.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, accepting the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the amendment, which included a holding provision requiring safe access to be approved by the conservation authority, represented a reasonable compromise consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and the Region's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring business owner on consent and scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2022.

The applicant sought judicial review to quash a municipal zoning by-law that added a motor vehicle service station as a permitted use on the respondent's property.

The application was brought more than four years after the by-law was enacted.

The applicant argued that the municipality failed to provide adequate notice of the proposed amendment, denying it the right to participate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application due to the significant delay, finding that the municipality had complied with the statutory notice requirements and that the delay caused prejudice to the respondents who had relied on the by-law.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever and minor variances for a property in Hamilton.

The proposal involved severing a parcel to add to an abutting vacant lot to create a new lot for a single detached dwelling, with a mutual driveway.

The Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the variances were authorized.

The parties requested a further Case Management Conference (CMC) to address details of phasing and outstanding matters in the Procedural Order regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 24, 2022.