OLT 2022

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Amber Peak Developments Inc. against the City of Kingston's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and corresponding Zoning By-law Amendments.

The Tribunal noted that only issues related to the number of bedrooms and the height of accessory buildings would proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The parties agreed to a two-day video hearing for expert testimony followed by written legal submissions.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing and dispensed with the need for a formal Procedural Order.

The County of Simcoe appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent application for a lot boundary adjustment on agricultural lands.

The applicant sought to sever a portion of their farm, separated by a natural heritage feature, and merge it with an adjacent vacant rural residential lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the consent, finding that the proposal was not a 'minor boundary adjustment' but rather the creation of two undersized agricultural lots.

The Tribunal held that the resulting parcels would not conform to the minimum 40-hectare lot size requirement in the Simcoe County Official Plan and were inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement's protection of agricultural resources.

The City of Mississauga appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances permitting the owners to construct a new two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included revisions to the site plan, such as reducing the driveway width and retaining an additional tree.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the amended variances subject to conditions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit approval for an accessory structure, the property owner was granted party status on consent.

The parties indicated a willingness to engage in settlement discussions concerning a Final Vegetation Protection Plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties time to negotiate a settlement or, alternatively, to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted Party status to Lafarge Canada Inc. and two local residents, and Participant status to two other residents.

The Tribunal declined to set hearing dates until the issues list is finalized, ordering a further Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the failure of the County of Peterborough and the Township of Selwyn to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant sought to recognize and permit the existing legal non-conforming use of a motor vehicle repair shop and to allow for a building addition.

The municipalities argued that land use compatibility concerns had not been adequately addressed and that mitigation measures should be resolved at the policy stage rather than the site plan stage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies and that any impacts on neighbouring residences could be adequately mitigated through a robust site plan agreement.

The applicant appealed a permit issued by the Quinte Conservation Authority to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Tribunal found that under the Conservation Authorities Act, an applicant must first request a hearing before the conservation authority regarding specific permit conditions before appealing to the Tribunal.

Because the applicant failed to perfect a request for a hearing before the authority, the Tribunal concluded it lacked statutory jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2519371 Ontario Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law and official plan amendment applications for a 14-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted the Yonge Ridge Homeowners' Association's request to change their status from party to participant.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for an industrial building and outdoor storage area.

The Regional Municipality of Halton was granted party status on consent.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal granted conditional approval of the interim Site Plan, pending the resolution of outstanding conditions, and scheduled a future hearing to finalize the site plan and conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission for development.

The parties agreed to narrow the issues for the hearing and to prepare a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and set dates for a three-day video hearing.

In an expropriation proceeding, the Claimant sought disturbance damages including $1,015,000 for additional mortgage interest costs allegedly caused by delay.

The Region brought a motion for production of financial statements, bank records, and corporate records from the Claimant and two third-party mortgagees, arguing the mortgages were non-arm's length transactions involving the Claimant's director.

The Tribunal allowed the motion in part, ordering production of the requested financial and corporate records, finding them relevant to proving whether funds were actually disbursed and necessary to avoid prejudice to the Region.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a residential property into three lots.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to permit the replacement of an existing single-storey condominium unit with a 1.5-storey unit.

The variance sought to increase the maximum permitted floor area from 80 square metres to 114.2 square metres.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, preferring the applicant's expert planning evidence that the proposal maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor in nature, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a 14-unit townhouse development adjacent to the Metrolinx Rail Corridor.

The City did not oppose the development from a land use or urban design perspective, but raised concerns regarding rail safety.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence of the applicant in land use planning, urban design, and rail safety.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, which includes a crash wall and a 25-metre setback from the rail corridor, adequately addresses rail safety risks, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law amendments were approved subject to post-approval conditions.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a 27-day hearing to commence in April 2023.

The parties were directed to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order, and participants with common concerns were directed to submit joint statements to avoid duplication.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in a Replacement Decision and Order dated April 7, 2022.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal deleted and replaced the Title of Proceeding and the Appearances section.

In all other respects, the original Replacement Decision and Order remains unchanged.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments, the Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing after the applicant and the City resolved all remaining issues.

The Tribunal also denied participant status to the Lakeview Ratepayers' Association due to its repeated failure to comply with Tribunal directives requiring proof of its corporate status.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of two detached single-family dwellings.

The requested variances included reductions in lot width, lot area, garage setback, and rear yard setback.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that the proposed development meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, represents appropriate residential intensification, and is compatible with the existing neighbourhood character.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the Issues List for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal approved the issues proposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission, with an amendment to include water quality and quantity.

The Tribunal struck several issues proposed by the appellant, finding that concerns regarding the need for a site visit, the applicant's past conduct, and the need for an occupancy permit were not substantive issues for adjudication under the applicable legislation.

A procedural order was issued and a one-day video hearing was scheduled.

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

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties requested on consent to consolidate the Zoning By-law appeals with the Official Plan appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the appeals and scheduled a further Case Management Conference, which the parties intend to be a settlement hearing if City Council accepts a proposed settlement offer.