OLT 2022

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss the respondent's appeals regarding a proposed residential subdivision, arguing the appeals lacked apparent land use planning grounds and were premature due to insufficient technical information.

The respondent had appealed the moving parties' failure to make a decision on its draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent's notices of appeal and supporting expert affidavits disclosed genuine, legitimate, and authentic land use planning grounds worthy of adjudication.

The Tribunal also held that prematurity under section 51(24) of the Planning Act is a matter to be determined at a full hearing on the merits, not on a motion to dismiss.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a three-unit dwelling with modified performance standards, including reduced parking requirements.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, as it promotes residential intensification in an appropriate location.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal to issue a permit for the construction of a dwelling in a heritage conservation district under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, two neighbourhood residents requested party status to address issues of massing and neighbourhood character.

The applicant opposed the requests, arguing that participant status was sufficient and that further professional evidence was unnecessary.

The Tribunal granted individual party status to both residents, finding that their local perspectives on maintaining heritage character would be helpful and necessary for a hearing de novo.

The Township of Adelaide Metcalfe brought a motion seeking a determination that the Ontario Land Tribunal has jurisdiction to arbitrate a dispute with the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc over a shared servicing agreement for water and sewer utilities.

Strathroy-Caradoc argued the agreement had expired and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under both s. 474.10.3(1)(j) and s. 474.10.16(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as the parties had agreed to binding arbitration in the event of a failure to negotiate a new agreement, and the dispute involved the mandatory supply of public utilities.

The Tribunal also granted an interim order requiring Strathroy-Caradoc to facilitate connections for three specific development properties pending a final resolution.

The applicant sought minor variances for lot coverage, building height, and platform size to construct five detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances.

Neighbouring residents appealed, arguing the variances would exacerbate drainage and flooding issues.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeals without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that drainage and grading are site plan matters, not land use planning grounds relevant to the requested variances, and the appeals had no reasonable prospect of success.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss appeals of Official Plan Amendment 554 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 101-2022, which permit the development of Garden Suites across the city.

The City argued that under the Planning Act, specifically sections 17(24.1) and 34(19.1), there is no right of appeal for policies or by-laws that give effect to additional residential unit policies, except by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

The appellants argued against the substantive contents of the amendments, such as setbacks and tree destruction.

The Tribunal agreed with the City's statutory interpretation, finding that the appeals were statute-barred because only the Minister has the right to appeal these specific permissions.

The appeals were dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to subdivide a property into two lots for the construction of two semi-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the consents had regard for provincial interests and the variances met the four-part test under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consent subject to conditions and authorizing the requested variances for reduced lot width and area.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a mixed-use development, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a four-week Hearing of the Merits.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment to permit a mixed-use development with 25 and 34-storey towers near the Davisville subway station.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan, and representing good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the fulfillment of several conditions including a Section 37 agreement and heritage approvals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent in a land compensation dispute under the Expropriations Act between the claimants and the City of Toronto.

The order rescinded a previous procedural order and established a new schedule for discoveries, exchange of witness statements, and a 7-day video hearing commencing in May 2023.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development.

The City did not actively participate in the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of a multi-tenant commercial property by the Ministry of Transportation.

Prior to the hearing, the parties settled the market value at $3,200,000 and business loss at $507,000.

The remaining issues were the commencement date for interest and a request for an increased interest rate of 12% due to alleged delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for increased interest, finding it was not pleaded and there was no undue delay.

The Tribunal also held that productive use of the property ceased on February 28, 2018, when the last tenants vacated, and interest should commence from that date.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 59-storey mixed-use development at 625 Church Street.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 56-storey tower that retains the existing heritage building façade within the podium and introduces a new privately-owned publicly accessible space.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and conforms to the municipal official plan.

The Tribunal approved the development in principle, withholding its final order pending the execution of Section 37 and Heritage Easement agreements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal regarding a proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the property at 380-396 Ontario Street in the City of Stratford.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Timmins' approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted the rezoning of a property to facilitate the construction of a six-unit apartment building.

The appellant raised concerns regarding infrastructure, neighbourhood character, and over-development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence of a City planner, who testified that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Official Plan and Growth Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township of Guelph Eramosa's decision to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment for a rural industrial facility.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits for February 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Municipality of Lakeshore's refusal to enact a Temporary Use By-law to permit transport trailers for storage.

The parties indicated an intent to request Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference call for a status report and deferred setting hearing dates until a Procedural Order and Issues List are prepared.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building at 210 Bloor Street West.

Following an interim decision that approved the development in principle subject to conditions, the Ontario Land Tribunal found that the conditions had been satisfied.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered the amendment of the zoning by-law, including securing Section 37 community benefits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and refusal of a heritage permit, for a proposed 10-storey student residence.

Participant status was granted to a neighbouring residence concerned about shadowing impacts.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day contested hearing to commence on September 18, 2023.

The applicant and the county brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a provisional consent to sever land for a townhouse development.

The appellant, a neighbouring resident, argued that the site included an improperly conveyed public road allowance and raised concerns about development in a floodplain.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that disputes over registered land ownership are outside its jurisdiction and must be resolved in the courts.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that floodplain and environmental issues, while legitimate planning concerns, are appropriately addressed through the related Zoning By-law Amendment process rather than the consent to sever, which deals only with land ownership and boundaries.