OLT 2023

This was a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit parcels of land to be considered as one lot and identify shoreline activity areas.

The Tribunal confirmed that all six owners of the subject property had consented to the appeal proceeding.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a one-day hearing of the merits.

The appellant appealed the Region of York's decision to pass Official Plan Amendments 18.3 and 18.4 to the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties agreed to scope the appeals to a site-specific basis and requested an adjournment sine die pending the completion of the City's Municipal Comprehensive Review.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and noted that the non-appealed portions of the amendments came into force by operation of the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the municipality's enactment of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments were requested by the applicant to permit a 23-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicant, approved the procedural order, and scheduled a nine-day video hearing to commence on November 6, 2023, along with a second Case Management Conference on June 5, 2023.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment that proposed relocating 64 acres of Settlement Area onto prime agricultural lands.

The parties agreed to withdraw and amend certain issues to consolidate the Issues List.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming three-day video hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving a consent to sever a rural property to create a new residential lot.

The appellant argued the proposed severed and retained lots, each with 75-metre frontages, failed to meet the 100-metre minimum lot frontage requirement for Minor Collector roads under the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal agreed, finding the application did not conform to the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the protection of transportation corridors, and did not represent good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was refused.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment for a proposed mixed-use development, the Tribunal noted that the parties had not made significant progress in scoping the Issues List as previously ordered.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to allow the parties additional time to refine the Issues List and ordered that a revised draft Procedural Order be provided in advance.

The Tribunal issued a Final Order on March 10, 2023, approving amendments to a City of Toronto Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal subsequently received a request to correct a minor technical error in the zoning by-law amendment regarding a loading space.

The Tribunal ordered the correction and replaced the attachment to the Final Order.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a midrise residential apartment building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the appellant requested that a second CMC be scheduled to be heard together with a related appeal for a proximate property.

The Tribunal granted the request, noting the similarities in the applications, policies, and parties, and scheduled the second CMC to proceed via video hearing.

The appellants appealed the City's Development Charges By-law under section 14 of the Development Charges Act, arguing it lacked a mechanism for landowners to repeal area-specific charges upon forming a Cost Sharing Agreement.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties indicated they were working towards a resolution that might result in the appeal being withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that setting hearing dates was premature and ordered the parties to provide a status update within 60 days.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding an appeal of an amendment to a Renewable Energy Approval for the Niagara Region Wind Farm.

The Approval Holder failed to serve the Notice of CMC to all assessed property owners within 550 metres of the project location by the required methods at least 15 days prior to the CMC.

Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the CMC and directed the Approval Holder to properly serve the notice.

Motions to dismiss filed by the Approval Holder and the Director will be heard at the rescheduled CMC.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for two industrial buildings.

The Region of Halton sought and was granted party status on consent, as the subject property accesses a regional road and is subject to the regional official plan.

The Tribunal approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a two-day video hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order amending the approved conditions of a draft description for a phased condominium development in the Township of Muskoka Lakes.

The amendments updated the date of the draft description and revised specific conditions relating to the lands adjacent to the shoreline and common element areas.

The appellants appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted the applicants to develop three small cabins for short-term accommodation on their farm property.

The appellants argued the proposal was not a valid On-Farm Diversified Use (OFDU) and did not comply with Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were engaged in a genuine farming operation and that the proposed agri-tourism use met the criteria for an OFDU under the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans.

The Tribunal also determined that MDS I setbacks were not required because the municipality's zoning by-law did not specifically mandate them for this type of use.

The appeal was allowed in part only to make technical refinements to the zoning by-law, but otherwise dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Leslie Elgin Developments Inc. against the City of Richmond Hill for failing to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a high-density residential development comprising two apartment buildings.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals on consent and approved the Procedural Order to guide the upcoming 12-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of two additional residential buildings on a site with an existing 15-storey apartment building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered a revised proposal for a 12-storey and a 6-storey building.

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

The appeal was allowed in part and the development approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of municipal conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development with 26- and 30-storey towers on a shared podium.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the revised proposal.

The Tribunal found the amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Regional Official Plan, and City Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the Official Plan Amendment approved and the Zoning By-law Amendment approved in principle, subject to finalization.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a concurrent Case Management Conference for two separate proceedings concerning the transfer of aggregate licences under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal determined that, due to common jurisdictional and legal issues regarding financial compensation for licence transfers, both proceedings should be heard by a common panel to avoid inconsistent findings.

The Tribunal issued procedural orders and scheduled the hearings for November 2023 and February 2024.

The appellant filed complaints against development charges imposed by the City of Toronto and education development charges imposed by the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The Ontario Land Tribunal brought a motion to dismiss the appeals without holding a public hearing under subsection 19(1)(b) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, as the appellant failed to provide requested information within the specified timeframe.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The claimant brought a claim against Metrolinx seeking compensation for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act, arising from the taking of a property that forced the closure of the claimant's car wash business.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing to resolve the central business valuation dispute.

The Building Industry & Land Development Association appealed the Toronto Catholic District School Board's Education Development Charge Amending By-law No. 194-2019.

The Ontario Land Tribunal brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without holding a public hearing under s. 19(1)(b) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

As the appellant failed to respond to the Tribunal's request for information within the specified timeframe, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeal.