OLT 2023

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved a new Official Plan for the Region of Peel, which repealed and replaced the 1996 Official Plan and all its amendments.

As a result, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered, on consent of all parties, that the remaining appeals of the Region of Peel's Official Plan Amendments 16, 20, 22, 24, and 26 be dismissed as moot.

Appeals relating to planning instruments of the City of Brampton and the Town of Caledon were not affected by this order.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for a mixed-use development in the Golden Mile area.

The parties reached a settlement proposing four mixed-use and residential buildings, a new public park, and a new public street, with an incentive for exclusive rental housing.

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 allowed the appeal in part and approved the Official Plan Amendment.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The proposed development includes residential and office buildings with a public park.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and requested a second CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for June 1, 2023, to provide a status update and roadmap for resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Timbertrin (Guildwood) GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for four mixed-use buildings.

The parties reported productive settlement discussions and requested the scheduling of a further Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the requested dates.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the conservation authority's refusal to issue a development permit.

The parties provided a preliminary Hearing Work Plan setting out the anticipated order and schedule of witnesses.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video merit hearing and directed the parties to continue working together to meet the timelines in the Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference concerning appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit the redevelopment of a shopping centre site with a public park and five mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order, confirmed participant status for a residents' association representative, and provided guidance on mediation services.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 630-unit residential development.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised that a new understanding of a set-back line necessitated a revised development plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to allow the parties to consider the new plan and engage in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Eastway International Inc. for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Catholic District School Board and participant status to several individuals on consent.

A 14-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on February 20, 2024, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order by June 15, 2023.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the retail sale and storage of docks on the subject properties as an accessory use to an existing commercial property.

The appellant argued the use was compatible with the surrounding area and could be regulated through site plan control.

The municipality argued the outdoor storage use was out of character for the central area and did not conform to the Official Plan or the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal favoured the municipality's planning evidence, finding the proposed amendment did not meet the legislative tests, and dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton on consent.

Participant status was granted to three individuals and a Business Improvement Area who attended the hearing, but denied to twelve individuals who requested status but failed to attend.

A five-day hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was approved.

The applicants appealed the North Almaguin Planning Board's refusal of a consent application to sever a rural residential waterfront lot on Commanda Lake.

The Board had refused the application on the basis that the lake was at capacity and that its guiding principles limited severances to once every 15 years.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' experts, finding that the lake was not at capacity based on current data and that the 15-year limitation was not grounded in applicable policy.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, concluding the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was informed that the applicant intends to submit a revised proposal and a site plan application, which will also be appealed.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to consolidate the appeals and finalize the Procedural Order.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission for the construction of a single-family dwelling.

The parties were unable to agree on a single Issues List.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order that included both parties' separate Issues Lists and scheduled a seven-day hearing on the merits for October 2023.

The applicant requested a Telephone Conference Call due to the City's failure to sign off on post-approval conditions for previously successful official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals.

The applicant sought to consolidate a new site plan appeal with the current matter.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the site plan appeal as it was not properly before it, and directed that the impasse regarding the post-approval conditions be resolved via a formal motion supported by expert affidavits.

The claimants sought compensation for an historic expropriation that occurred when the Township of Tay mistakenly constructed a road extension over their property.

The matter was scheduled for a three-day hearing on the merits.

However, due to the absence of a hearing plan, agreed statement of facts, and procedural order, the Tribunal determined the matter was not ready for a hearing.

With the consent of the parties, the hearing was converted to a Case Management Conference.

The parties agreed to attend a Tribunal-led mediation assessment and a subsequent status hearing.

A case management conference was held regarding appeals by 1583123 Ontario Inc. against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for two proximate properties.

The applicant requested that the appeals for both properties be heard together due to their similarities, shared expert witnesses, and identical policy regimes.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the hearings and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order and issues list.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit an 11-storey mixed-use residential building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning, urban design, and transportation evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Kawartha Lakes' refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a trailer sales and storage business on an agricultural property.

The applicant argued the business qualified as an on-farm diversified use (OFDU).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed trailer sales could operate independently of the farming operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also found the proposed commercial highway activity was not appropriate for the rural road.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Clarington's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) that rezoned the adjacent property to permit a convenience store within an existing residential dwelling.

The appellant argued the ZBA lacked necessary traffic and parking studies and would cause unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the use of a holding provision was appropriate to ensure technical issues are addressed at the Site Plan stage, and that the ZBA was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a canopy encroachment of 6.215 metres into the rear yard, where a maximum of 1.5 metres is permitted.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the proposed covered porch would be compatible with the neighbourhood and would not result in undue adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to a condition requiring a visual privacy screen.