OLT 2023

The moving parties (the Fifes) sought costs of $7,457.96 against the self-represented appellant, Mels, following the dismissal of his minor variance appeal.

The Fifes argued that Mels acted unreasonably by failing to retain experts or call evidence at the hearing, forcing them to incur costs to defend the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Mels relied on supportive municipal staff reports and participated respectfully to the best of his abilities.

The Tribunal held that a self-represented party is not required to match the resources or expert evidence of opposing parties, and his conduct did not meet the threshold of frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith behaviour under Rule 23.9.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey seniors' residence.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies and municipal official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the amendment in principle, issuing an interim order pending finalization of the zoning by-law draft and servicing agreements.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit an autobody repair establishment.

The parties presented a finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the construction of a two-storey boathouse and associated dock on Lake Muskoka.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment, which included reduced lot frontage and increased width permissions, was consistent with provincial policies and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the city's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The Tribunal granted party status to a self-represented individual on consent and approved the finalized Procedural Order to govern the upcoming nine-day hearing.

The Appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a mixed-use building at 200 University Avenue.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for August 2, 2023, to finalize the procedural order and issues list, and to address a pending heritage designation.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Glencedar Inc. against the Township of Minden Hills' refusal of Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals/organizations.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order or settlement documents prior to the next hearing.

The claimant appealed to the Tribunal for a determination of compensation for injurious affection against the City of Ottawa.

The Tribunal requested an update on the claim and warned that failure to respond within 21 days could result in dismissal under section 19(1)(b) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The claimant failed to respond within the prescribed time period.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal dismissed without a hearing.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal determined the procedural schedule and format for two upcoming motions for costs following an expropriation compensation decision.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation, rejected the claimant's request to bifurcate the hearing into separate entitlement and quantum phases, and directed that both motions be heard concurrently over a five-day period, with the claimant presenting its motion first.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the zoning by-law and for site plan approval to permit a mixed-use mid-rise building.

The parties reached a settlement proposing an 11-storey building with 238 dwelling units.

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

The appeal was allowed in part, approving the zoning by-law amendments in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of specified conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a non-decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 348-unit residential apartment building in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties, noting that the applicant's development plans had been revised and may continue to change through ongoing discussions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission conditionally approving a development permit for a one-storey agricultural building (a run-in shelter for horses).

At the Case Management Conference, the appellants raised concerns regarding groundwater impacts and odours from manure.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions regarding the number of days horses could be kept on the property and the location of the manure pile.

The Tribunal adjourned the CMC to allow the parties to continue settlement negotiations, directing them to prepare a draft Procedural Order if a settlement could not be reached.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the retention of an existing front yard driveway and parking space at a residential property.

The City argued the driveway conflicted with Official Plan policies and a recent site-specific zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that the driveway had existed for over 35 years without issue, was consistent with neighbourhood character, and satisfied the four tests for minor variances under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicants appealed the Regional Municipality of Durham's decision to approve an Official Plan Amendment to the Municipality of Clarington Official Plan.

The Southwest Courtice Landowners Group requested and was granted party status.

The municipality and other parties submitted that the appeal was invalid because the applicants failed to make oral or written submissions to the municipal council prior to the adoption of the amendment, which is a statutory pre-condition under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal agreed, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and dismissed it.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference to facilitate continued case management of outstanding appeals relating to approximately eight hectares of lands identified as 'Deferral Areas'.

The parties proposed scheduling a further CMC in the early fall and setting hearing dates to ensure the appeals move forward without delay.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a further CMC for September 27, 2023, and a nine-day video hearing commencing March 18, 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny two of fifteen requested minor variances for a proposed 18-storey mixed-use building.

The City supported the application in full at the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances, which related to parking, setbacks, floor area ratio, and heritage building preservation, met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and all fifteen variances were authorized subject to the condition that the applicant obtain a Zoning Clearance Certificate and a Building Permit.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a cannabis production facility with reduced setbacks to a community facility and residential dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a Holding Provision requiring an Emission Summary and Dispersion Modelling report to address odour concerns.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application for a 32-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two residents' associations, approved a phased hearing process starting with the Zoning By-law Amendment, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a seven-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the City of Kitchener's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a three-tower mixed-use development containing 1,124 residential units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development, which includes significant residential intensification and streetscape enhancements near transit, is consistent with provincial policies and represents good planning in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's neglect to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval to permit a 31-unit townhouse development.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was informed that the parties had reached a settlement.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents and scheduled a settlement hearing for April 27, 2023.