OLT 2024

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 3300 Rutherford Developments Inc. for the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, noted ongoing without-prejudice discussions between the parties, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for January 16, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the pre-hearing steps and the hearing of a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The hearing is scheduled for eight days commencing in October 2025.

The order sets out the timetable for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, exchange of expert reports, and other procedural milestones.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of a draft plan of subdivision and brought a motion for directions to determine the applicable land use designation for the site.

The site's designation was affected by a complex sequence of events involving a new Official Plan, a Minister's modification, a subsequent municipal Official Plan Amendment (OPA 5), and the retroactive reversal of the Minister's modification by the Official Plan Adjustments Act (OPAA).

The Tribunal found that while the OPAA retroactively reversed the Minister's modification, it did not revoke the subsequently passed OPA 5.

Therefore, OPA 5 remains in force, designating the site for residential development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the City of Burlington's Development Charges By-law No. 41-2024.

The appellant expressed interest in a mediation assessment and requested time to determine if mediation will proceed.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 21, 2024, to allow the parties to explore mediation.

The applicant brought a motion to deny Party status to the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA) in an upcoming merit hearing regarding a minor variance appeal to expand a legal non-conforming duplex.

The Tribunal found that while the RPRA had a direct interest, it would not meaningfully assist the Tribunal because it did not intend to call expert evidence on the planning and heritage issues.

The Tribunal denied Party status, granted Participant status instead, and established the issues list for the merit hearing.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the Town of Erin's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application sought to permit the conversion of a horse-riding arena for indoor storage.

The Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a two-day merit hearing to be held by video conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant railway company against the municipality's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal deferred a request for party status by a neighbouring landowner, directing them to file a written motion.

The Tribunal also approved a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for a high-rise mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed subdivision had regard for provincial interests, conformed with applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions, delegating final approval to the City.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the municipality's revised conditions for a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties requested additional time to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a written hearing to consider a partial settlement between Silvercore Inc. and the City of Toronto regarding an appeal of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 569-2013.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence of Caroline Samuel, the Tribunal found that the proposed site-specific modifications, which permit a townhouse residential building type on the subject lands, are consistent with provincial policies and represent good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the modifications to the zoning by-law.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a property at 123 Wynford Drive.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the revised proposal promotes efficient land use, accommodates mixed uses, and contributes to housing options supported by mass transit.

The Tribunal issued an interim order approving the amendments, noting that written reasons would follow.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval to facilitate a mixed-use mid-rise development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, finding the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy, supportive of intensification, and contributing to housing options for seniors.

The final order was withheld pending the finalization of planning instruments and the submission of updated technical reports to the municipality's satisfaction.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The application seeks to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day hearing on the merits and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicants appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan control applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

Following a settlement, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals based on uncontested land use planning evidence.

The Tribunal found the development, which includes mid-rise buildings and townhouses, represents good planning, provides needed housing, and conforms with applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The zoning by-law amendment and site plan were approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision for a mixed-use, transit-oriented community.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions meet the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, are consistent with provincial policies, and represent good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision was approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 16 appeals against the newly adopted 2023 City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to five requesting entities, including conservation authorities and railway companies, finding they had a direct interest.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals with a related Major Transit Station Area case to a subsequent joint CMC, and established a schedule for the appellants to provide modification letters to the City.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an eight-storey, 82-unit mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the agreed-upon amendments.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a detached dwelling with an attached front-facing garage.

The subject property was subject to a Street Character Analysis where front-facing garages are generally not permitted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposal maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate use of the land, and was minor in nature, noting that it would not adversely impact the streetscape and would preserve more soft landscaping than as-of-right alternatives.

A request for costs against the opposing community association was denied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan, zoning, site plan, and heritage applications for a 28-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Church Wellesley Neighbourhood Association Inc. and deferred a party status request from the Church-Wellesley Village BIA to a second Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal also deferred the issue of consolidating the planning and heritage appeals.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that approved minor variances for accessory structures and a reduced front yard setback, but imposed a condition requiring the gratuitous conveyance of land for a road widening.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, relying on established case law, the Tribunal held that the road widening condition was inappropriate because it lacked a reasonable relationship to the requested variances.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized without the road widening condition.