OLT 2024

The moving party (developer) brought a motion to dismiss an appeal filed by a neighbourhood association against a heritage designation by-law.

The neighbourhood association had actively supported and sponsored the heritage designation process but filed an appeal on the last possible day, which had the effect of delaying a scheduled hearing on a settlement regarding the developer's planning applications.

The Tribunal found that the neighbourhood association had ample opportunity to raise concerns during the by-law process but failed to do so.

The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious under s. 29(16) of the Ontario Heritage Act and dismissed the appeal without a hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the Town of Caledon's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The parties reported they are actively working toward a resolution and requested further time to finalize planning instruments.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 2024 and a Hearing on the Merits for February 2025, with directions for filing settlement materials or a procedural order.

The parties jointly requested that the Ontario Land Tribunal vary its previous Order to approve a zoning by-law amendment with an updated section 37 agreement.

The updated agreement replaces a previous benefit allowing the City to elect between a cash payment or land transfer with a requirement to transfer three properties to the City for use as future parkland at no cost.

Relying on the uncontested land use planning evidence of a Registered Professional Planner, the Tribunal found the variation to be in the public interest and represent good planning.

The Tribunal ordered the zoning by-law amendment varied retroactively.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Burlington's decisions to pass heritage designation by-laws for two properties.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a two-day merit hearing to commence by video on May 27, 2025.

The appellant appealed a Director's Order prescribing actions to dispose, manage, and reduce leachate from its hazardous waste management facility.

The parties reached a settlement agreement to amend the Order to require specific monthly leachate disposal volumes based on the site's estimated leachate volume, and to incorporate these requirements into an updated Design and Operations Plan.

The Tribunal found the settlement to be protective of the environment and in the public interest, approved the Minutes of Settlement, and directed the Director to amend the Order accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Magnum General Contracting Inc. against the Township of Scugog for failing to make decisions on Site Plan Approval and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The Tribunal approved the final draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence on May 26, 2025, by video.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for an appeal against the County of Brant's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a bulk water sales business on agricultural land.

The parties disputed the inclusion of certain issues in the Issues List, specifically whether the proposed use should be considered a warehouse or transport terminal.

The Tribunal found the County's proposed issues relevant for the hearing de novo and ordered their inclusion in the Procedural Order.

A four-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed 49-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 62-storey development that includes heritage conservation, increased setbacks, and affordable housing contributions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several preconditions.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 under subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act.

The parties reached a full, uncontested settlement regarding the properties.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law to implement the settlement.

The City of Ottawa filed a request for review of the Tribunal's decision regarding expropriation compensation claimed by the respondents.

The Chair of the Ontario Land Tribunal exercised his discretion to order a one-day motion for review to be heard electronically before a different Member of the Tribunal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Forty-Six Spadina Ave.

Limited and Capitol Buildings Properties Inc. against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan, Zoning By-law, and Site Plan applications within statutory timelines.

The Tribunal granted party status to Shell Canada and participant status to Haishan Qian on consent.

An eight-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for September 2025, and the parties were directed to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List by April 2025.

The appellants appealed the conditions attached to a provisional consent granted by the County of Hastings for a lot addition intended to resolve access and encroachment issues for a neighbouring property.

The appellants contested conditions requiring a detailed plot plan of the neighbouring lands and the dedication of portions of their retained lands to the municipality for road widening and a turnaround.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the consent itself represented good planning, the disputed conditions were not reasonable, necessary, or equitable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act, as they would require actions on lands not owned by the appellants and disproportionately burden them with road dedication.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding minor variances for a high-rise mixed-use development incorporating residential towers and townhouses.

The proposed development was revised to increase height and density following the announcement of a planned light rail transit station adjacent to the site.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the regional official plan.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding site-specific appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 18.8 for the Oak Ridges Local Centre in the City of Richmond Hill.

The appellants confirmed their appeals were scoped to their individual properties.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the unappealed portions of OPA 18.8 came into force pursuant to s. 17(39) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing for the Streamgrove and Worthington appeals to be heard together, and a separate five-day hearing for the Yonge and Bloomington appeal, issuing procedural orders for both.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 21-lot residential development.

At the hearing, the appellant withdrew the Draft Plan appeal after reaching a settlement with the Town.

A third party objected to the withdrawal and requested the Tribunal withhold its order on the ZBA pending a cost sharing agreement.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the third party's request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to mandate a private cost sharing agreement.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the ZBA, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the Town's Official Plan.

This was a Case Management Conference concerning appeals of a consent application refusal and conditions of a draft plan of subdivision.

The District of Muskoka and the Town of Gravenhurst took the position that the subdivision appeal was invalid because the approval had lapsed.

The Tribunal directed the District to file a motion to determine the validity of the appeal and scheduled a hearing for the motion.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-rise development consisting of 30-storey and 39-storey towers.

The City opposed the development, arguing it exceeded the height of the Niagara Escarpment and conflicted with the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, finding that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement's goals for intensification and land optimization in a transit-oriented area.

The Tribunal concluded that the building heights would not negatively impact views of the Niagara Escarpment and that shadow, wind, and servicing issues could be adequately addressed through the site plan process.

Multiple parties appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 615, which implements the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan.

Prior to the hearing, the City and several appellants reached a settlement modifying the OPA to prioritize the public realm, encourage diverse land uses, and support higher-order transit.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA 615 represents good land use planning and approved it in principle, save for several site-specific 'hived-off' appeals that will proceed separately.

The Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend the procedural dates for the upcoming hearing regarding appeals of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for a proposed 447-unit residential development in Hamilton.

The dates for witness statements and reply witness statements were extended to January 2025.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against Official Plan Amendment 126 to update the Brookhill Neighbourhood Secondary Plan in Clarington.

The Tribunal granted party status to Brookhill North Landowners Inc. and confirmed statutory party status for the Municipality of Clarington.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Susan Seger as she did not make oral or written submissions prior to the adoption of the plan, and directed that any challenges to the validity of the remaining appeals must be brought by motion.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.