OLT 2022

The applicant appealed the City of Barrie's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use condominium.

At a second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal granted party status to Malcolm Hachborn and reviewed the contentious issues proposed by him and another added party, David McKenzie.

Several proposed issues were struck for being irrelevant to the Tribunal's mandate, such as questions about the municipality's internal processes and public meeting conduct.

The Tribunal conditionally retained two of Hachborn's issues relating to stormwater management, directing that a motion be held to predetermine whether his daughter could be qualified as an independent expert witness to support those issues.

Hearing dates were scheduled.

The appellants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a curved driveway, which was required to retain a City-owned tree.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert evidence in urban forestry and land use planning supporting the variance and the concurrent consent to sever application.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the consent application represented good planning.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment at 1900 Eglinton Avenue East.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered a proposed settlement between the applicant and the City, supported by uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal found that the proposed settlement, which includes 12 new residential and mixed-use buildings, public parkland, and affordable housing, represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policy, and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a six-storey, 308-unit retirement residence.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to two individuals, directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a six-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the Town of Bracebridge.

The amendment would permit the conversion of a hunt camp to a seasonal dwelling.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Town of Oakville appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a residential property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the requested maximum residential floor area ratio.

The Tribunal found the amended application was minor and required no further notice.

Based on unrefuted planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Township of Clearview Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to reduce a required landscaping screen.

The variance was sought to facilitate an addition to an existing daycare facility.

The Township did not participate in the hearing.

Relying on the municipal planning staff report which supported the application, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and represented good planning.

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

The applicant appealed the refusal of a consent application by the Norfolk County Committee of Adjustment.

The application sought a minor boundary adjustment to add a 1.181-acre parcel from an adjacent property to the subject property to facilitate the construction of an accessory structure.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the application was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

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

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

The Tribunal denied a party status request from two local residents, granting them participant status instead, and granted participant status to 25 other individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal addressed two motions regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendments 51 and 54.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together.

The Tribunal also ordered the appellant to provide substantive responses to the Town's request for particulars on a without prejudice basis.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for December 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

The applications seek to permit a residential development with 107 units.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicants brought a motion requesting the Tribunal to issue a final Order enacting zoning amendments for a 49-storey residential development, following a previous decision allowing their appeal.

The City of Toronto opposed, arguing the applicants were seeking to increase the unit count, which amounted to a review beyond the prescribed timeframe.

The Tribunal found that the original approval did not explicitly restrict the number of units and that unit count was not a determinative factor in its findings.

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction to issue the final Order approving the zoning by-law amendment without the unit cap.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the municipality's Zoning By-law No. 0119-2022.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, setting dates for a motion to dismiss and a four-day video hearing, and establishing the issues list and order of evidence.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's Zoning By-law 2017-275 to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Prior to a hearing, the City of Ottawa passed a motion repealing the subject by-law.

Upon receiving notice of the repeal, the Tribunal ordered under its own motion pursuant to section 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act that the by-law is repealed and closed the case.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an 8-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal previously allowed the appeals in principle and issued a Final Order.

The Tribunal received a request on consent to issue an amending order to correct two minor technical and calculation errors in the zoning by-law amendment attached to the Final Order.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the zoning by-law amendment be replaced.

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an infill residential development of four semi-detached dwellings on a severed parcel.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development conforms to the City's Official Plan, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and maintains the low-rise residential character of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planner, noting the City's planner made several concessions during cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by NJS Developments Inc. against the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a 348-unit residential apartment building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of York and G Group Major Mackenzie Inc., and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 15-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by DASH (QS) Inc. for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval to permit a 31-storey mixed-use building in Toronto.

The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association requested party status but was instead granted participant status on consent, without prejudice to seeking party status at the next CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and a seven-day hearing for 2023, directing the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act for properties located on Weston Road in Toronto.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal rescinded a previous procedural order and issued an amended procedural order setting out the schedule for discoveries, expert meetings, and a five-day video hearing.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the construction of a detached secondary dwelling unit in their rear yard.

The variances sought to reduce the minimum side yard setback and the minimum width of the unobstructed access path.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, preferring the City's expert evidence that the proposed variances would result in massing, drainage, and access issues.

The Tribunal found the application failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, and was neither desirable nor minor.