OLT 2022

The applicant appealed the Town of Greater Napanee's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit a permanent asphalt and ready-mix concrete plant.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a local group, Keep Napanee Great, on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day hearing of the merits.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference concerning an appeal of the County of Bruce's approval of an Official Plan Amendment to permit retail and commercial uses, including an outfitters store and an inn.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Applicant and the Town of Saugeen Shores.

The Tribunal determined that the appeal could proceed despite an outstanding issue regarding the ownership of a road allowance, as road ownership is outside its jurisdiction.

The Tribunal also reviewed the proposed issues lists, striking several issues that were not planning matters, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 294 and a site-specific Official Plan Amendment for the Yorkdale Shopping Centre property.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner, directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 10-day merits hearing.

The Tribunal also ordered that the matters be heard together.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting property owner on consent.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions, a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the Town of East Gwillimbury's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the development of 15 single detached dwellings and 16 townhouse dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to conditions.

The Tribunal returned the authority to give final approval for the Plan of Subdivision to the Town.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing.

The appellant, a self-represented marine engineer, raised concerns about soil stability and groundwater, but indicated he would not call any expert witnesses.

The Tribunal found the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as the appellant was not qualified to give expert opinion evidence on these matters, which had already been reviewed and accepted by City engineers.

The Tribunal also found the appeal vexatious and lacking an apparent land use planning ground, as building safety is governed by the Building Code.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding an appeal by MacPherson Realty (Peterborough) Ltd. and others against the City of Peterborough's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

No requests for party or participant status were received.

The parties requested more time for settlement discussions and to finalize an Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for December 12, 2022, and provided directions for submitting materials if a settlement is reached or for setting a hearing date if not.

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant one of several requested minor variances for a newly constructed detached dwelling.

The refused variance sought a reduced rear yard depth for an uncovered porch.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the irregular shape of the lot meant the majority of the porch complied with the setback requirement.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to render a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit 24 residential units.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to two nearby residents.

As the parties were engaged in ongoing settlement discussions, the Tribunal deferred establishing a procedural order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Jackson Harvest Farms Ltd. against the Town of Wilmot's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal granted party status to Citizens for Safe Groundwater Inc. and participant status to 37 individuals on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for March 2023 and a 22-day hearing for October 2023, anticipating administrative consolidation with a related Aggregate Resources Act license referral.

The applicant appealed the Town of Arnprior's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the development of three apartment buildings on a vacant brownfield site.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Town's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law was amended in accordance with the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Town of Essex's refusal of their application to amend the Zoning By-law to allow for the storage of fireworks.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to 11 individuals without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 3-day merit hearing to commence on April 4, 2023, and directed the Town's counsel to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Leslie Elgin Developments Inc. against the City of Richmond Hill for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications propose a high-density residential development with two apartment buildings.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 13 individuals on consent, scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 2023 to finalize the Procedural Order, and scheduled a 12-day merits hearing for October 2023.

The City of Thunder Bay brought a motion under section 34(31) of the Planning Act for an order allowing its new comprehensive zoning by-law to take effect while four site-specific appeals remained pending.

The City provided uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the by-law did not change the zoning provisions applicable to the appellants' properties.

The appellants did not respond to the motion or provide evidence of prejudice.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that allowing the unappealed portions of the by-law to come into force accorded with the purposes of the Planning Act and would not prejudice the appellants.

The applicant appealed the City of London Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application for a lot boundary adjustment.

The adjustment would reduce the lot area of the subject property and increase the lot area of an adjacent lot to form a larger lot utilizable for residential development.

The Tribunal found that the consent application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the City's Official Plan and the London Plan.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to facilitate a townhouse development, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to Suncor Energy Products Partnership and participant status to two neighbouring residents.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the respondent's refusal to approve an application to demolish a dwelling on a designated heritage property.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

LIV (Hawk Ridge) GP requested a three-year extension to a draft plan of subdivision approval originally appealed by Angelo Orsi and Mark Rich Homes Limited.

With the consent of the County of Simcoe and the Township of Severn, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, extending the draft plan approval to September 22, 2025, and amending the draft plan conditions.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a proposed 8-storey mixed-use condominium, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to a nearby resident, finding he had a genuine interest and raised valid issues.

Participant status was granted to four other residents without objection.

The Tribunal directed the parties to revise their draft Issues Lists and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The applicant and the City of London brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment without a hearing.

The self-represented appellant had filed a Notice of Appeal but failed to provide the mandatory reasons and explanations required by the Planning Act to demonstrate how the amendments were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement or failed to conform with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, finding that the notice of appeal was deficient, raised no apparent land use planning grounds, and had no reasonable prospect of success, particularly given the uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the development.