OLT 2023

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the replacement of a legal non-complying residential dwelling on Morlock Island.

At the case management conference, the parties presented a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Township's Official Plan, noting that the development would have no negative impact on significant natural heritage features.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 12-storey residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies, represents an appropriate level of intensification along a transit corridor, and is in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 46-unit townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed development and draft Zoning By-law Amendment were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision.

The parties requested a third CMC as the municipality and region were still reviewing the applicant's third submission.

The Tribunal scheduled a third CMC for May 24, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List prior to that date.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its March 14, 2023 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the list of appearances was amended to add S. Kaufman as counsel for three of the parties.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant brought a second motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of aggregate licence transfers without a hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it was barred by issue estoppel and res judicata as it raised substantially the same issues as a previously dismissed motion.

The Tribunal also permitted an unlicensed representative to act for the applicant under an exception to Law Society By-law 4, and directed that further case management be scheduled concurrently with another proceeding raising similar jurisdictional issues regarding financial compensation under the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment that would permit limited retail and commercial uses in an agricultural area.

The Appellants sought to add seven new issues to the previously scoped issues list.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting the issues had been scoped by the Appellants' former counsel and the purpose of the CMC was to finalize the Procedural Order.

A two-day video hearing was scheduled for June 2023.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their consent and minor variance applications by the Town of Ingersoll Committee of Adjustment.

The applications sought to create a flag-shaped residential infill lot in the backyard of an existing property, requiring relief from minimum lot frontage requirements.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed, provisional consents were granted subject to conditions, and the variances were authorized.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, the applicant brought a motion for a declaration that its counsel, Goodmans LLP, was not in a conflict of interest.

An opposing party had previously been represented by a different lawyer at the same firm in a minor variance matter.

The Tribunal applied the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin and found that no confidential information had been transmitted to the applicant's current counsel, the prior matter was unrelated, and the firm had promptly established an ethical wall.

The motion was allowed in part, and the applicant was permitted to continue retaining the firm.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Jackson Harvest Farms Ltd. for a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Aggregate Resources Act licence to permit a gravel pit operation.

The Tribunal formally consolidated the two appeals on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference to consider proposed Minutes of Settlement and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List for the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a consent order allowing appeals in part to permit a Class A quarry licence for Cornwall Gravel Co. Ltd. The Tribunal amended the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Official Plan and the Township of South Stormont Zoning By-law.

The order included conditions requiring a technical review of floodplain mapping by the Raisin Region Conservation Authority before the removal of a holding symbol, and directed the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry to issue the aggregate licence once the zoning amendment is finalized.

The applicant appealed under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act regarding a site plan for a townhouse condominium development in Port Rowan.

The parties reached a full settlement and presented a revised Site Plan Agreement to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the official plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal approved the site plan on consent.

The applicant appealed the Town of Carleton Place's refusal to grant a development permit for the construction of seven residential units.

The Town argued the development was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Town's Official Plan, primarily citing urban design and architectural concerns.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the applicant's architect and planner, finding the development compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, consistent with the PPS, and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed on an interim basis, contingent upon the parties entering into a development agreement and a common elements plan of condominium.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application within the prescribed timeframe.

The amendment sought to redesignate lands from Restricted Agricultural Area to Residential.

The parties indicated they were close to a settlement and requested a further CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and granted participant status to abutting neighbours.

The Township of Springwater appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever a 42.2-hectare agricultural parcel from a property, retaining a 6.9-hectare parcel with an existing dwelling and farm market operation.

The Tribunal found that the severance, which facilitates farm consolidation for a neighbouring farmer while allowing the existing agri-food business to continue, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans.

The Tribunal preferred the agrological evidence supporting the enhancement of the agri-food network over the Township's strict application of minimum lot area policies.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of granting the provisional consent subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a proposed four-storey retirement home.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality, the conservation authority, and two abutting neighbours.

A request for party status by another neighbour was deferred to the next CMC.

Participant status was granted to an abutting condominium corporation.

The Tribunal set dates for the exchange of issues lists, a second CMC, and a nine-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize a minor variance to increase the maximum lot coverage from 35% to 39% to permit a roofed-in terrace on a new single-family dwelling.

The Town supported the application and presented uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four-part test under subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent of the official plans and zoning by-law, was desirable, and was minor in nature with no adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

A telephone conference call was held for an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit residential development on the subject lands.

The Tribunal granted party status to the appellant's spouse.

The Tribunal directed the appellants to revise their draft Issues List to focus solely on planning matters, noting it was unreasonable to expect the municipality to call expert witnesses on non-planning issues solely for the purpose of cross-examination.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Miss BJL Corp. against the City of Mississauga for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframes.

The applications seek to permit a 9-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Peel on consent.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions pending a resubmission, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 20, 2023.

The applicants appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances for the construction of a new 2.5 storey detached dwelling on a corner lot.

The variances included increased building height, increased floor area ratio, an additional half storey, and reduced setbacks.

The Tribunal found that the variances were driven by Conservation Halton's requirement to exclude a basement due to the property's location in a flood plain.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances satisfied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they were minor, desirable, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.