Nicole Andrea Auty

The Region of Waterloo brought a motion seeking approval of a proposed final revision of the Issues List in the Procedural Order governing the merits hearing of an appeal concerning Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2.

The Region argued that a prior Tribunal decision had made an issue estoppel finding that restricted the appellants from raising certain provincial policy and plan issues.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the prior estoppel decision was binding and had been upheld by the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order containing an Issues List in accordance with the prior estoppel decision.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 185-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement, which included preserving a heritage dwelling and existing trees, and replacing a proposed apartment building with stacked townhouses.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence and the consent of all parties, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the revised zoning by-law and draft plan of subdivision.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a two-storey addition to an existing four-storey residential building.

The proposed development would add 40 units, increase the maximum height and density, and reduce the required parking and amenity space.

The Tribunal found that the proposed intensification was appropriate for the transit-oriented downtown location, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence supporting a reduced parking rate of 0.57 spaces per unit without requiring a holding provision for Transportation Demand Management measures.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

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 a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The proposed development includes 185 residential units and the conservation of a heritage dwelling.

The Tribunal granted party status to a local resident without objection.

The parties indicated they are working towards a potential settlement, and the Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a five-day video hearing.

The Requestors sought a review of a prior Tribunal decision granting minor variances and provisional consent to the Applicant, alleging they did not receive notice of the appeals or the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the Requestors to file motion materials to substantiate their claims.

Despite multiple notices and extensions, the Requestors failed to file the required materials and did not attend the scheduled video hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for review due to non-compliance, leaving the original decision in force.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo and the City of Cambridge to make decisions on a proposed draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 48-hectare site.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed residential development and environmental protection areas satisfy all statutory requirements, including conformity with the Growth Plan and consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft Plan of Subdivision and the Zoning By-law Amendment.

An application was brought seeking a declaration interpreting a municipal zoning by-law to determine whether an existing church could expand its use onto an adjacent parcel of agricultural land once the parcels were merged.

The municipality argued that the by-law permitted only “existing churches” on lands where such uses existed at the time the by-law was passed, thereby preventing expansion onto new lots.

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation, the court examined the wording, purpose, and scheme of the by-law.

The court held that the exemption for “existing churches” applied to the building rather than to a specific lot and that the by-law did not expressly restrict expansion onto adjoining lands.

A declaration was granted permitting the merged lands to be used for church purposes.

An elector applied to the Compliance Audit Committee for a compliance audit of four municipal election candidates' campaign finances, alleging various contraventions of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996.

The Committee dismissed the application.

On appeal, the court considered the appropriate standard of review, the meaning of "reasonable grounds," and whether the candidates had contravened the Act.

The court found that the Committee was entitled to deference as an expert body and applied a reasonableness standard.

The court upheld the Committee's decision, finding no reasonable grounds to believe the candidates had contravened the Act, as they had promptly returned improper contributions upon becoming aware of them and any filing errors were unintentional and did not materially affect the public's ability to review campaign finances.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for a restaurant and nightclub.

The municipality objected, arguing that the licensed premises would not be in keeping with future revitalization plans for the downtown area.

The Board found that the municipality failed to provide independent evidence to support its position and that there were no grounds to disentitle the applicant.

The application was approved subject to conditions requested by the municipality.

The appellants, landlords in Oshawa, appealed a judgment ordering them to cease using their properties as lodging houses.

They argued their properties operated as single dwelling establishments for groups of tenants, primarily students.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the properties were rented on a room-by-room, short-term basis, functioning as lodging houses rather than single housekeeping establishments.

The court also rejected the argument that s. 35(2) of the Planning Act precluded considering the relationship among renters.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board denying their request to review an earlier decision that allowed a development of three detached houses.

The appellants argued the Board acted outside its jurisdiction by approving access via an existing right of way, which they claimed would create an overburden and interfere with neighbouring property rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board had jurisdiction to determine legal issues, such as easements, that were incidental to its administrative function of approving variances and granting consents to sever under the Planning Act.