OLT 2022

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for a reduced rear yard setback and altered lot coverage percentages to permit an existing enclosed canopy at a mushroom farm.

An adjacent neighbour opposed the appeal, arguing the enclosure constituted an expansion of the operation that would exacerbate existing odor and drainage impacts.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding the enclosure was an addition that improved worker safety without changing the footprint or use of the structure.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions, including requirements for a building permit, an approved grading and drainage plan, and registration of the site plan agreement on title.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law and an official plan amendment in the Town of Halton Hills.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals and provided directives for the upcoming video hearing, including the removal of oral participant statements from the hearing plan in accordance with the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

A case management conference was held regarding a claim for compensation arising out of injurious affection.

The Tribunal ordered the substitution of the corporate claimant, 2350685 Ontario Inc., for the personal claimant, Dean Adams, on consent.

A procedural order was issued setting the dates for the hearing on the merits and establishing the pre-hearing procedural requirements.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to demolish an existing dwelling and construct two semi-detached dwellings on severed lots.

The requested variances related to lot area, rear yard setbacks, and interior side yard setbacks.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforming to the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a large-scale neighbourhood commercial development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Regional Municipality of Halton was granted party status on consent.

The parties requested a second Case Management Conference to allow for further discussions, which the Tribunal scheduled for June 17, 2022.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by SO Development Inc. for a proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision due to the City of Oshawa's failure to make a decision.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order on consent and scheduled a 19-day Phase 2 video hearing to commence on August 29, 2022.

The applicant appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment refusal of applications to sever two new residential lots from the subject property.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed lot creation is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents appropriate infill development on full municipal services.

Provisional consents were granted subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance for reduced rear and side yard setbacks to facilitate the installation of a pool.

A neighbour opposed the application, citing drainage and privacy concerns.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding no clear evidence of an unacceptable adverse impact on the neighbouring property, as drainage issues would be addressed through the City's pool permitting process.

The Tribunal concluded that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, subject to a condition requiring low-impact development measures for stormwater runoff.

A case management conference was held regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 15-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to Corktown Residents and Business Association and Andrew Hilton, and deferred other participant requests.

Party status was granted to Preserve Corktown but denied to 1250294 Ontario Ltd. as its interest related to an easement outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The parties were directed to develop an Issues List and a draft procedural order.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of a zoning by-law amendment that rezoned four severed parcels from General Agricultural to Rural Residential.

The appellant argued the rezoning would impact drainage and that the relocation of a municipal drain was unnecessary.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit an updated Procedural Order and Issues List, offered Tribunal-led mediation, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced lot area for a secondary dwelling unit in the basement of an existing home.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, supported provincial policies encouraging affordable housing and intensification, and would not create adverse impacts.

The appeal was granted subject to the condition that the unit be limited to one bedroom.

The appellants appealed the Township of McKellar's Zoning By-law No. 2019-23 under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act.

The Township subsequently passed resolution No. 22-82, which repealed the zoning by-law.

As a result, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined that its jurisdiction over the matter had ceased and administratively closed the file.

The appellant appealed a rezoning and consents for three new residential lots.

On the morning of the first day of the hearing, the self-represented appellant emailed the Tribunal stating he had tested positive for COVID-19 and was en route to the hospital.

The appellant did not appear for the first three days of the scheduled hearing, nor did a representative appear on his behalf.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and directed that the new hearing date be peremptory on the appellant.

The appellant appealed the refusal of minor variances by the Township's Committee of Adjustment for additions to an existing legal non-complying dwelling and dock on a waterfront property.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plans and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeals were allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Town of Bracebridge's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit stacked row townhouses.

The appellants and the Town reached a settlement in principle, but a third party did not agree, necessitating a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a draft Procedural Order to govern the upcoming five-day hearing.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to validate an existing detached garage and loggia that were built closer to the lot line than previously approved.

The City took no position on the appeal but requested a condition regarding lot grading and stormwater management.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to the City's requested condition.

The appellant appealed two conditions of draft plan approval for a subdivision that required the dedication of a 40-metre wide transitway right-of-way at no cost to the City.

The required dedication represented 19.1% of the total area of the plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal found that while the transitway was necessary for the City's orderly growth, requiring the dedication of the entire right-of-way at no cost was not reasonable, relevant, necessary, or equitable for this specific development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the conditions to require the appellant to dedicate 5% of the land area at no cost, with the City to compensate the appellant at fair market value for the remaining land required.

The appellant appealed conditions imposed under an Amended Environmental Compliance Approval regarding its animal by-product processing plant, specifically concerning odour unit limits.

Prior to the scheduled three-week hearing, the parties reached a proposed settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference, vacated the previously set hearing dates, and scheduled a settlement hearing to be held by video.

A case management conference was held regarding appeals to the County of Simcoe and Township of Tiny Official Plans concerning the appellant's lands.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted party status to the Township of Tiny, and directed the parties to proceed with Tribunal-led mediation.

The claimant sought compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of portions of its property by the Ministry of Transportation.

The parties previously advised the Tribunal that a settlement in principle had been reached, leading to the cancellation of the scheduled hearing.

At a subsequent Case Management Conference, the parties confirmed that Minutes of Settlement were drafted but not yet signed.

The Tribunal declined the claimant's request to schedule a further Case Management Conference in two weeks, finding it an unproductive use of resources.

The Tribunal directed the parties to advise when binding Minutes of Settlement are executed, holding the file in abeyance until then or until a status report is provided by September 1, 2022.