OLT 2023

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The claimants requested that a hearing date be set and a Procedural Order established.

The respondent requested a deadline for the receipt of outstanding documentation.

The Tribunal found deficiencies in the proposed Procedural Order and determined that setting a hearing date would be premature.

The Tribunal ordered the claimants to provide the outstanding documentation and directed the parties to provide a status update by a specified date.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development at 102 Berkeley Street.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 35-storey building that includes an expanded public park along the street frontage to maintain the low-rise character.

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 City Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment in principle, withholding its final order until several conditions are met.

The appellants appealed the failure of the City of Cambridge and the Region of Waterloo to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium to permit 11 single detached homes.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development and conditions of draft approval were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of conditions of draft plan approval for two subdivisions in the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio.

The Tribunal approved the Draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties and scheduled a ten-day merit hearing to commence in May 2024.

The appellant requested a last-minute adjournment of the third Case Management Conference to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment and official plan amendment for a 21-storey residential building.

All parties consented to the request.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a new waterfront commercial use (tourist establishment/resort) on Kashagawigamog Lake.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt an Official Plan amendment and refusal to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development with buildings ranging from 4 to 36 storeys.

Following a public hearing and a previous decision withholding the final order pending the fulfillment of conditions, the Tribunal was advised that all conditions were met.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, amending the Official Plan and directing the municipality to amend the applicable Zoning By-laws to facilitate the development.

The Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a commercial development.

The Tribunal scheduled a fifth CMC and a five-day merit hearing, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a residential development at 11-23 Hollis Street.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement proposal for a 48-storey residential tower.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and conforms to the applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until various pre-requisite conditions are satisfied by the applicant.

The Town of Hanover brought a motion to be added as a non-appellant party to appeals against the County of Grey's Official Plan Amendment 11 (OPA 11).

OPA 11 identifies Future Secondary Plan Areas adjacent to the Town's boundaries to accommodate future growth.

The appellants, 1063755 Ontario Limited and the Municipality of West Grey, opposed the motion, arguing that the Town's participation was unnecessary and would duplicate the County's evidence.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the Town has a direct interest in the policies related to future growth and that procedural fairness favours its addition as a party, as the interests of upper and lower-tier municipalities are distinct.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 560 (OPA 560), which established the new Sheppard Willowdale Secondary Plan.

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

Based on the uncontested land use planning evidence of the City's planner, the Tribunal found that the proposed modifications to OPA 560 were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the modified OPA 560.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the City of Kitchener's Parkland Conveyance By-law No. 2022-101.

The Tribunal granted party status to two additional entities on consent.

The City requested the establishment of a Common Interest Class under Rule 8.4, which was opposed by the appellants and denied by the Tribunal as premature.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled, and parties were directed to exchange their particularized issues for a draft Procedural Order.

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 a 29-storey residential building.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings leading up to a 17-day hearing scheduled to commence in September 2024.

The claimant brought a land compensation claim against the Regional Municipality of York under the Expropriations Act.

The parties requested a consent order to dismiss the matter.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the matter dismissed without costs to either party.

The Township of Springwater filed a request for review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision issued on March 21, 2023, which approved consent applications for severance.

The Chair of the Tribunal determined that the request met the threshold to warrant a review.

The Tribunal ordered that the previous decision be set aside and rescinded, and that the appeal be re-heard by a differently constituted panel.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 6-storey residential apartment building with 125 dwelling units.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Niagara Falls' adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a vacation rental unit in an existing detached dwelling.

The appellant argued that the official plan prohibited vacation rental units in the River Road Satellite District and that the proposal would result in an undue concentration of tourist accommodations.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendments were consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional and local official plans, and did not create an undue concentration of vacation rental units.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a City of Mississauga Development Charges By-law, the parties disputed the wording of the Issues List.

The Tribunal directed that the terms 'fair and reasonable' be retained but placed after references to the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal also directed that references to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan be removed from an issue regarding official plan conformity, while retaining the questions on conformity with the local and regional official plans.

A 14-day hearing was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of a zoning by-law intended to facilitate a mixed-use development, arguing it contained technical deficiencies and failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were engaged in productive settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the parties to present a settlement or request hearing dates.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 367-unit residential apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments, finding they represent good planning and are in the public interest.