OLT 2022

The Appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 27-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development conforms with the City's 2008 Official Plan, the Growth Plan, and the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal held that the proposed height, massing, and urban design were appropriate for the downtown context and provided adequate transition.

The Tribunal also found the proposed parking supply and shadow impacts to be acceptable.

The appeal was allowed in principle, subject to conditions including a holding symbol related to environmental site remediation.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of consent to sever and minor variance applications to facilitate the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of two new single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised proposal with reduced massing, re-oriented lot frontages, and fewer variances.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal met the statutory tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

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

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 19-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal previously allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendment in principle, withholding its final Order until the City was satisfied with the final form of the by-law and a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report.

Having been advised that these conditions were met, the Tribunal issued its final Order amending the zoning by-law.

The applicant sought minor variances to permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling on an undersized waterfront lot, requiring relief from setback requirements from the highwater mark and top of bank.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances with conditions, and the appellant appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that they satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation by a tenant whose lands were expropriated by the City of Toronto.

The parties requested hearing dates and submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day hearing for April 2023 and a further Case Management Conference for February 2023, and issued the requested Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications for a proposed 10-storey residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner on consent.

A second Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing on the merits were scheduled.

The applicant sought to rezone his property to permit commercial uses, including a convenience store, which the municipality approved.

The appellant, who operates a competing convenience store next door, appealed the decision.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 34(25) of the Planning Act, arguing the appeal was brought in bad faith to prevent market competition and lacked legitimate planning grounds.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's uncontradicted expert planning evidence raised legitimate land use planning issues regarding site size, parking, and loading conflicts that warranted a full hearing.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to conclude the appeal was brought solely for delay or in bad faith.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and failure to approve a site plan to permit an electrical contractor's yard on a rural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and traffic evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the County and Town Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended zoning by-law and site plan agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a nine-storey residential building within the statutory timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the parties were engaged in productive discussions and optimistic about a full resolution.

The Tribunal directed the parties to contact the Case Coordinator to either schedule a hearing or provide notification of the appeal's withdrawal.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of its Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications, and the Region's failure to make a decision on a Regional Official Plan amendment, which sought to permit an illegal contractor's yard.

After repeatedly failing to comply with the Tribunal's Procedural Order, the appellant brought a last-minute motion to adjourn the hearing, claiming an inability to retain a land use planner.

The Town and Region brought cross-motions to dismiss the appeals without a hearing.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding it was a delay tactic to allow the illegal use to continue and to postpone sentencing for related provincial offences.

The Tribunal granted the cross-motions and dismissed the appeals, finding they were made in bad faith, for the purpose of delay, and disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a single dwelling on a vacant lot, citing concerns about visual impacts and building size.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

At the settlement hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the approval.

The Tribunal found the decision to conditionally approve the development permit was correct and confirmed the decision pursuant to section 25(12.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit an as-built dwelling and sundeck.

The parties indicated a strong potential for settlement and requested a hearing date to either present a settlement or scope issues for a contested hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing in July 2022 for settlement or scoping, and a two-day hearing in September 2022 if a contested hearing is necessary.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to grant a severance of two adjacent properties to create three new residential lots.

The City opposed the application, arguing that the proposed lot frontages and areas were inconsistent with the established neighbourhood character and did not conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the applicants' planning evidence that the neighbourhood featured an eclectic mix of lot sizes and that the proposed infill development was consistent with provincial and municipal intensification policies.

The appellant appealed the passing of a zoning by-law amendment by the Township of Scugog, which rezoned the subject lands to permit a self-storage facility.

Prior to the scheduled four-day hearing of the merits, the parties requested an adjournment to proceed with a Case Management Conference instead, in order to scope and refine the issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, scheduled a new four-day hearing, and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order with a defined issues list.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application to sever 10.9 hectares of agricultural land and merge it with an adjacent agricultural property to facilitate a more efficient farming operation.

The Town opposed the application, arguing it constituted lot creation and would leave the retained parcel undersized under the 40-hectare minimum in the Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposal was a minor lot boundary adjustment for farm consolidation that did not create a new lot, and that the retained parcel would remain agriculturally viable.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a six-storey residential condominium and five detached residential lots.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development and planning instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan, Region of Peel Official Plan, and City Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the instruments in principle, withholding its final order pending the final form of the instruments.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize floor area ratio variances for three proposed two-storey detached dwellings on irregular, smaller lots in the St. Luke's Precinct.

The Tribunal conducted a hearing de novo for all requested variances, including setbacks and lot coverage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed developments disregarded the newly introduced floor area ratio standard intended to prevent overbuilding.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances would result in overdevelopment, lacked appropriate spatial separation, and were incompatible with the neighbourhood character.

The appeals were dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

This was a case management conference for appeals regarding an official plan amendment, a zoning by-law amendment, and a heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act for properties on Queen Street West and Brock Avenue.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two community groups on consent.

The parties requested additional time to explore settlement opportunities and discuss consolidating the appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference for April 28, 2022.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its April 4, 2022 decision.

The original decision's Schedule A referenced legacy mining claim numbers instead of the corresponding new claim numbers.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the decision to replace the legacy claim numbers with the 848 new claim numbers provided jointly by the applicant and the Provincial Mining Recorder's Office.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan), the appellant 1941 Eglinton East Holdings Inc. brought a motion to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate land use designation for its lands.

The City opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that a motion regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction should be heard first.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's motion, finding it in the public interest to provisionally schedule the hearing pending the outcome of the City's jurisdictional motion, as doing so would offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.