OLT 2024

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated October 29, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the decision to remove specific policies from the Town's Issues List.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and denied the appellant's request to limit the participant's written statement, finding no statutory requirement for the participant to have made submissions at a public meeting for an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow for mediation in related appeals.

The Regional Municipality of York brought a motion for directions regarding the procedural order in an expropriation compensation claim.

The parties disputed the timing of expert report exchanges and the delivery of appraisal reports prior to examinations for discovery.

At the hearing, the parties resolved the disputes on consent, agreeing to simultaneous exchange of expert reports and adherence to Rule 26.21 for the delivery of appraisal reports.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day hearing and issued the agreed-upon procedural order.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

Prior to a scheduled settlement hearing, a numbered company filed late materials raising grading and drainage concerns and sought Party status for related site plan and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The applicant and the City opposed Party status due to the late filing.

The Tribunal denied Party status, finding that further delay would prejudice the applicant, but permitted the numbered company to file a Participant Status Request Form limited to its drainage and grading concerns.

The applicant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 25-storey building with 289 dwelling units.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with the applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the settlement.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by two applicants due to the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Ainslie Wood Community Association.

The Tribunal also approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a twenty-day merit hearing to commence in January 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing for an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment refusal by the City of Niagara Falls.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025, for five days.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 21-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal deferred a party status request from a planner pending the submission of an issues list, denied a party status request from a union representative for failing to articulate planning issues, and granted participant status to fourteen individuals and entities.

A second Case Management Conference and a 10-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its October 10, 2024 decision regarding a hearing of necessity.

The corrections updated the property description, the details of the rapid transit project, and the specific land area requirements for partial acquisition, temporary construction easements, and a permanent hydro easement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its October 10, 2024 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to change the party name from the City of Toronto to the City of Markham in both the appearances section and the body of the decision.

The appellant filed an objection to the Town of Grimsby's Notice of Intention to Designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the appellant advised the Tribunal that the appeal was withdrawn.

The Tribunal confirmed the withdrawal, closed the case file, and confirmed that the designating by-law is in force and effect.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development with 33- and 44-storey towers.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part and the planning instruments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending fulfillment of specified conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nipigon Investments Inc. and Nipigon Property Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan, Zoning By-law, and Site Plan applications for a 50-storey residential building.

The parties advised that a settlement had been reached between the applicants and the City, though Metrolinx was not a party to the settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day contested settlement hearing and approved the final Procedural Order to guide the future proceedings.

The claimant's property was expropriated by Metrolinx for the construction of a subway station.

Following the claimant's death, a case management conference was adjourned multiple times to allow for the appointment of an estate trustee due to a dispute over the property's ownership.

After an estate trustee was appointed, the claimant requested a hearing date.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing date over the respondent's objection that pleadings had not yet been exchanged.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to deliver a Statement of Claim and the respondent to deliver a Reply, and adjourned the case management conference.

The applicant appealed the City's calculation of cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication fees, arguing that the cap introduced by Bill 23 should apply because no building permit 'in respect of the development or redevelopment' was issued prior to November 28, 2022.

The City argued that demolition permits issued in January and May 2022 qualified as such building permits.

The Tribunal found that the demolition permits were building permits under the Building Code Act and were issued to facilitate the redevelopment.

Therefore, the transition provision applied, the cap did not apply, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on planning applications for a 45-storey residential building.

The parties informed the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal cancelled the previously scheduled eight-day merit hearing and scheduled a settlement hearing for November 19, 2024.

The applicant sought costs of $445,375.56 against the City following the settlement of a planning appeal.

The applicant argued the City unreasonably delayed delivering the appeal package contrary to the Planning Act and engaged in other unreasonable conduct during settlement negotiations.

The Tribunal found the City's 75-day delay in delivering the appeal package was clearly unreasonable and awarded $2,500 in costs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the balance of the costs claim, finding the City's conduct during negotiations did not meet the high threshold for costs under Rule 23.9 and the applicant failed to particularize the costs associated with the alleged misconduct.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

A 14-day video hearing was scheduled to commence in April 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Spruce Rose Inc. against the Town of Oakville's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals on consent, noted the parties' intent to pursue mediation, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the five-day merit hearing scheduled for March 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings for an appeal of the Township of Georgian Bay's Development Charges By-law 2024-054.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, and the issues list.