OLT 2023

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding development charges, arguing the appellants failed to file their complaint within the 90-day statutory period.

The appellants had delivered their complaint and payment under protest to the Town of Georgina, which collected the charges on behalf of the Region.

The Tribunal found that the Town acted as the Region's agent, making the delivery valid and timely.

The Tribunal also rejected the Region's argument that the appeal improperly attacked the development charge by-law, finding that the appellants raised valid issues regarding the assessment of interest on frozen charges.

The motion to dismiss was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a townhouse and seniors' campus development.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Peel and participant status to two individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to provide updates following an upcoming municipal council meeting.

The Building Industry and Land Development Association appealed the Town of Ajax's Official Plan Amendment No. 71, which updated policies in response to Bill 13 and Bill 109.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties indicated a reasonable prospect of settlement.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a written status update by January 10, 2024, rather than scheduling a hearing immediately.

The appellants appealed the City of Greater Sudbury's approval of a zoning by-law amendment with modifications regarding building height and parking standards for a proposed medium-density residential development on a former school site.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised zoning by-law amendment.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised zoning by-law amendment.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to render a decision on a site plan application for a 106-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised Settlement Plan and Conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the settlement conformed to the Mount Hope Secondary Plan, implemented the site-specific zoning provisions, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Calloway Real Estate Investment Trust Inc. and SmartCentres REIT against the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law and site plan applications.

The applications propose a redevelopment with five mid-rise buildings and townhouses.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a community group, scheduled a five-day merit hearing, and issued a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of the claimant's property.

The parties agreed to an eight-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order setting the hearing dates and establishing the pre-hearing timeline for discoveries, expert reports, and mediation.

The County of Grey appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent for a lot boundary adjustment without a requested road-widening condition.

The applicant sought to convey an existing driveway to an abutting parcel.

The County requested a 5.182-metre road widening along Alfred Street West, consistent with its Official Plan policies for future growth and infrastructure expansion.

The Tribunal adopted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the road widening was required and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed, and provisional consent was granted subject to the road widening condition.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to rezone agricultural lands to a holding provision for suburban residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment, subject to a holding provision requiring a draft plan of subdivision and technical studies, was consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a 28-storey, 210-unit residential building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until certain conditions, including finalization of the by-laws and servicing confirmation, are met.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Site Plan application for a 12-storey mixed-use development within the statutory timeframe.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal held a written hearing to consider the agreed-upon draft Notice of Approval Conditions.

Relying on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the site plan and proposed conditions satisfied the requirements of the City of Toronto Act and conformed to applicable planning policies.

The Tribunal approved the site plan in principle, withholding its final order until all pre-approval conditions are met.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2593033 Ontario Limited against the Township of King's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications, as well as an appeal of the Township's new comprehensive zoning by-law.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the three appeal files and directed the parties to provide a status update on their ongoing settlement discussions regarding a revised proposal for the subject property.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to allow outdoor storage on the subject property for a temporary period of three years.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the conditions agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of an addition to an existing duplex to create a fourplex.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement modifying one of the parking area setback variances.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an aggregate extraction operation.

At a second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered whether to schedule a merit hearing or await the referral of a related licensing application under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal declined to set hearing dates, finding it appropriate to schedule a third CMC to allow time for the related matter to be referred and consolidated, thereby ensuring an efficient and comprehensive hearing.

The Applicant brought a motion for costs against two self-represented individuals who initially sought party status to oppose a development settlement but later withdrew to participant status after failing to retain expert witnesses.

The Applicant argued the individuals' conduct caused undue delay and unnecessary expenses.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the individuals' conduct was somewhat antagonistic and irresponsible, it did not meet the threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings for a compensation hearing under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing April 7, 2025.

The order sets out deadlines for documentary discovery, witness statements, expert reports, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the interior lot line setback for a new warehouse on an agricultural property used for a greenhouse operation.

The municipality did not oppose the appeal and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The variance was deemed minor and desirable as the interior lot lines would eventually be eliminated once a planned waste treatment facility was installed and the properties consolidated.

The appeal was allowed and the minor variance was granted.

A case management conference was held regarding appeals of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent's Development Charges By-law No. 148-2022.

The Tribunal granted participant status to Kevin Owen, representing all participants.

The parties reported positive discussions to narrow the issues.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for submitting a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day video hearing for May 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for official plan amendments and licenses to permit a quarry expansion.

The City of Burlington brought a motion to consolidate related Niagara Escarpment Commission appeals.

Due to concerns raised by the Tribunal regarding the City's supporting affidavit being sworn by a law clerk, the City withdrew its motion with liberty to refile.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference to finalize the procedural order and hear the refiled motion.