OLT 2022

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by two developers against the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendment 131, which revises height and urban design policies in the Lakeview Local Area Plan.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be limited to the appellants' specific properties and that the balance of OPA 131 remain in force and effect.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Minto Communities Inc. for the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed 16-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal ordered that a newly filed Site Plan appeal be heard together with the existing appeals.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to the Hintonburg Community Association Inc. and directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the Town of Milton Committee of Adjustment's decision to approve minor variance and consent applications for a residential property.

The applications sought to sever the property into two lots to allow for the construction of a new detached dwelling while retaining the existing dwelling.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence provided on behalf of the appellant, the Tribunal found that the applications met the criteria under the Planning Act, including the four tests for minor variances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the variances and consent were allowed subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 9-storey mixed-use development and a 4-storey rental replacement building.

The parties reached a settlement, which was supported by uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the approval of a rental housing demolition application.

The City of Oshawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce the required parking space length for an accessory apartment from 5.75 metres to 4.5 metres.

The City argued the reduced length would cause vehicles to overhang onto the municipal boulevard, creating safety issues and violating traffic by-laws.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the City's evidence regarding average vehicle lengths was inconclusive and that some vehicles could fit within the reduced space.

The Tribunal concluded the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the property, and was minor in nature.

The City of Toronto requested a Case Management Conference to schedule a five-day hearing on the merits regarding outstanding appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 365.

The Tribunal treated the event as a Status Hearing.

After hearing from the parties that several rezoning applications had been approved by the City and others were progressing through municipal processes, the Tribunal found that setting a hearing date would be premature.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the hearing and directed the City to request a further status update in nine months if no material progress occurs.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a front yard variance and refusing a side yard variance for a proposed detached dwelling.

The appellant raised concerns regarding building height, shadow impacts, and lot coverage.

Relying on the unshaken expert planning and engineering evidence provided by the municipality, the Tribunal found that the front yard variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, while the side yard variance did not.

The appeal was dismissed and the front yard variance was authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by the applicant against the respondent municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The amendment seeks to permit a three-storey, 34-unit apartment building.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates leading up to a three-day video hearing scheduled to commence on January 16, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a case management conference to address multiple appeals of the City of Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Transitional By-law 039-2022.

The Tribunal heard and approved several settlement motions on consent, which corrected mapping errors and recognized site-specific exceptions for various properties.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendments consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal also issued an order under section 34(31) of the Planning Act deeming the un-appealed portions of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to be in force.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for an appeal concerning a proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a vacation rental unit in the City of Niagara Falls.

The order sets out the hearing dates, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the schedule for the exchange of witness statements and other evidence.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision, the Simcoe County District School Board requested and was granted Party status without objection.

The Appellant noted a recent Official Plan Amendment application and requested a further CMC to address a potential consolidated appeal.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for March 28, 2023, and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement revising the proposal to an 11-storey building with 148 residential units.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

Shannondale Developments brought a motion for costs against Shanae Management Inc. following the Tribunal's dismissal of Shanae's zoning by-law appeal without a hearing.

Shannondale argued that Shanae's appeal was devoid of merit, lacked expert evidence, and was brought solely to leverage financial interests regarding off-site environmental remediation.

The Tribunal applied the Midland test and found that Shanae's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motion for costs was dismissed, with no costs payable by either party.

The appellant appealed the passage of a zoning by-law by the Town of Atikokan that permitted a 20-unit transitional housing facility.

The Tribunal held a case management conference and scheduled a three-day hearing on the merits of the appeal to proceed by video conference.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a commercial development including self-storage units.

The appellant failed to file responding materials or present any evidentiary basis to support its appeal.

The Tribunal found that the appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground and had no reasonable prospect of success, as the appropriateness of the self-storage use had already been determined through an in-force official plan amendment.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback from 12.5 metres to 7.0 metres for a proposed single detached dwelling.

The Town did not call a case, and the applicant summoned the Town's Manager of Development Planning, who provided uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the variance.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 571, which adds the Mount Dennis Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Learning Enrichment Foundation.

The parties agreed that the matter would benefit from Tribunal-led mediation, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2023.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances for lot coverage and exterior side yard setbacks to permit a partial second-storey addition.

The subject property featured an existing covered pool that made the lot coverage a legal non-compliant condition for nearly 50 years.

The Ontario Land Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the proposed addition maintained the existing building footprint and fit the character of the established large-lot neighbourhood.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for zoning by-law amendments to facilitate a 7-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a global settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the draft zoning by-law amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the fulfillment of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding an appeal by the applicants against the Town of Essex's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment sought to allow the storage of fireworks on agricultural lands.

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