OLT 2022

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Oakdale Trails Inc. against the Town's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 8600.

The appellant argued that the by-law allowed for excessive building heights and density, and raised concerns about sanitary sewer capacity.

The Tribunal found that the appeal did not disclose any genuine, legitimate land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal accepted the Town's evidence that the by-law conformed with the Official Plan and that servicing capacity was adequate.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to reduce a floodplain setback for a new dwelling.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing, approved a draft Procedural Order, and denied the appellant's requests to add the City of Kingston as a party and to order specific disclosure of a septic system plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Kenora's passage of official plan and zoning by-law amendments intended to convert the western half of Central Park into residential development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed instruments were not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform with the City's Official Plan, as they failed to adequately protect necessary parkland and open space.

Furthermore, the City failed to demonstrate that the proposed sensitive residential land use would be compatible with a nearby railyard facility, and inappropriately attempted to defer necessary noise and compatibility studies to the site plan approval stage.

The appeals were allowed and the by-law was repealed.

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Renimmob Properties Limited against the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 25-storey mixed-use development.

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

A 14-day hearing was scheduled for April and May 2023, and the parties were directed to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal issued an order on consent adjourning several site and policy specific appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 486 (King Spadina Secondary Plan) sine die.

The adjournment was granted without prejudice to the future resolution of the appeals.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The parties advised that they had engaged in successful settlement discussions and requested a settlement hearing.

Counsel for neighbouring property owners indicated they would not seek party status as their concerns were resolved.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing for July 21, 2022.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's denial of applications for consent to sever and minor variances to permit the construction of two new detached residential dwellings.

The City did not attend the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the consent had regard for provincial interests and the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, and that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

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

In an expropriation proceeding, both the claimant and the respondent municipality brought motions regarding questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The Tribunal ordered the City's representative to answer questions about the purchase price of adjacent lands, finding it relevant to the claimant's theory of highest and best use.

The Tribunal also ordered the claimant's representative to provide an itemized list of rental losses and to produce valuation reports referenced in its pleadings, provided that the claimant was not required to produce new analyses or expert work product protected by litigation privilege.

The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion to dismiss two appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) intended to implement the Transit Station Secondary Plan.

One appellant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the City's motion, alleging perjury by a City planner.

The Tribunal dismissed the cross-motion as being outside its jurisdiction and advanced for delay.

The Tribunal granted the City's motion and dismissed both appeals without a hearing under s. 34(25) of the Planning Act, finding that neither appeal raised genuine land use planning grounds, both were based on personal apprehensions rather than expert evidence, and neither had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant appealed the Town of Newmarket Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application.

The applicant sought relief from the zoning by-law to permit one of the required off-street parking spaces for a proposed accessory dwelling unit to be located within the garage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals under the Planning Act and the Ontario Heritage Act for a proposed five-storey mixed-use building on a site with heritage implications.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals be heard together for efficiency.

A motion regarding whether Notice was properly issued was scheduled for a future date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to a nearby developer and participant status to another.

A 10-day hearing was scheduled for May 2023, and the parties were directed to submit a revised procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by the applicant concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 143-unit mixed-use development.

The order sets out the schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 13, 2023.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving two consent applications to create a new lot and transfer land between parcels.

At the hearing, it became apparent that the applicant was unprepared and that there was a fundamental factual question regarding whether the two originating parcels had already merged on title.

The Tribunal converted the hearing into a Case Management Conference, directed the parties to determine the merger status, and set a deadline for the applicant to amend the applications if necessary.

A second Case Management Conference and a two-day hearing were scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties reported positive dialogue and requested a further CMC to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC and directed the parties to provide a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 29-storey mixed-use development.

At a settlement hearing, the parties presented a revised proposal that no longer required an Official Plan Amendment.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was consistent with provincial policy, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the by-law and a Section 37 agreement.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 2006316 Ontario Inc. from the Town of Penetanguishene's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing for August 23, 2022, and issued procedural directions for the filing of participant statements and settlement documents.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision for a mixed-use development on the waterfront.

Following mediation and revisions to the draft plan, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested evidence of the applicant's expert, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approved the revised conditions of draft plan approval, and referred final approval of Phase 1 to the City.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit a reduced lot size, reduced frontage, and reduced parking spaces for a proposed duplex on a retained lot following a severance.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, finding the proposal would co-exist harmoniously in the neighbourhood through creative infilling and intensification.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized.