OLT 2023

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a consent application to create a new residential water access lot on an island property.

Several neighbours brought a motion for party status, which the Tribunal dismissed, granting them participant status instead.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed consent, subject to conditions implementing an Environmental Impact Study and zoning requirements, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order amending the title of proceedings in an expropriation matter following a Case Management Conference.

One of the claimants passed away, and her estate trustees were appointed by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal ordered that the proceeding continue with the amended title reflecting the estate trustees as claimants.

The applicant sought costs of $153,858.95 against a residents group following a settlement hearing for a subdivision development.

The applicant argued the residents group acted unreasonably by pursuing meritless planning arguments and failing to call engineering evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the residents group participated reasonably, complied with procedural orders, and advocated in good faith.

The Tribunal emphasized its cautious approach to costs against citizens to avoid a chilling effect on public participation in the planning process.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 9218 Yonge Street Inc. due to the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a high-density mixed-use development.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, noting the City would finalize its issues following the applicant's resubmission.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 4, 2023, and a 12-day hearing was scheduled to commence on April 22, 2024.

Metrolinx brought a motion for summary judgment or to strike portions of Don Valley's claim, arguing the claims related to a commercial lease dispute outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Expropriations Act.

Don Valley brought a cross-motion to strike portions of Metrolinx's reply for failing to comply with pleading rules.

The Tribunal dismissed both motions, finding that the jurisdictional issues involved significant factual disputes unsuitable for summary judgment, and declining to strictly apply the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike pleadings in this context.

The Tribunal urged both parties to amend their pleadings to remove unnecessary evidence and argument.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by the appellant against the municipality's heritage designation by-law.

The parties requested a third CMC to continue discussions aimed at scoping or resolving issues.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a third CMC, directing the parties to file a final draft Procedural Order or settlement materials prior to the event.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Save Our Rand Estate Association brought motions for costs against the Owners after the Owners withdrew their objections to Notices of Intention to Designate under the Ontario Heritage Act shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The moving parties argued the late withdrawal and the Owners' conduct throughout the proceeding were unreasonable and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that while it has jurisdiction to award costs even when a matter is withdrawn prior to a hearing, the Owners' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motions for costs were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a condition of provisional consent requiring a cash payment for future road urbanization.

The City brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing under s. 53(31) of the Planning Act, arguing the notice of appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellant sought to introduce new grounds related to the City's financial policies and use of the collected funds.

The Tribunal held that the appellant was restricted to the grounds in the original notice of appeal, which only raised procedural fairness issues regarding the Committee of Adjustment's process.

The Tribunal found these were not valid planning grounds and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal further held that even if the new grounds were considered, they constituted an impermissible challenge to a Council-approved financial policy rather than the condition itself, and thus also failed to disclose valid planning grounds.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-rise residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal featuring reduced building heights and increased setbacks.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with applicable official plans, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the applications in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 5-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2024, regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 231.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals from the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make a decision on proposed plans of subdivision.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming five-day hearing scheduled to commence on December 4, 2023.

The applicant sought costs against the appellant after the appellant withdrew his appeal of a zoning by-law amendment shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to consider the costs request despite the withdrawal and granted the applicant party status for the motion.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for costs, finding that the appellant's conduct in filing the appeal, inquiring about purchasing the property, and ultimately withdrawing the appeal in response to a communication from the applicant's counsel was reasonable and did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct required for a costs award.

The appellant appealed an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind farm, which imposed stricter noise limits on a specific turbine.

The Director and the approval holder brought motions to dismiss the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motions, finding that the appellant's grounds and requested relief focused on the original approval and general compliance issues rather than the amendment itself.

As the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the specific decision under appeal, the appeal related to matters outside its authority and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding a minor variance to permit the construction of a two-storey dwelling.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal without holding a public hearing under section 19(1)(a) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, as the appellants failed to pay the prescribed fee despite receiving prior notice.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendments to permit the construction of 40 residential units, including 31 townhouses and 9 detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of technical conditions.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Southwest Georgetown Landowners Group Inc. against the Town of Halton Hills' Development Charge By-law and Parkland Conveyance By-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day merits hearing to be heard together and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of a three-storey triplex on a waterfront property in Grand Bend.

The municipality and a local community association opposed the development, arguing the building's scale and massing were excessively large and incompatible with the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal concluded that the unique characteristics of the large, dually-zoned lot made the proposed medium-density development an appropriate transition between nearby high-density and low-density uses, and that the design was compatible with the eclectic neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed the Town of Huntsville's new Community Planning Permit By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered uncontested expert planning evidence supporting site-specific amendments to the by-law for the appellant's waterfront landing and tourist resort properties.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a proposed mixed-use building.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a nine-day merits hearing to commence in February 2024.

The applicant appealed the Town of Georgina's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 16-unit townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and transportation evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the site plan and the amending by-law.