OLT 2024

The claimants brought a claim against the Toronto Catholic District School Board under section 26(1) of the Expropriations Act regarding the property at 3338B Bayview Avenue in Toronto.

The parties consented to the dismissal of the claim without costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the claim dismissed without costs.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 50-storey residential building.

The parties reached a full, uncontested settlement.

Based on uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development provides appropriate transit-supportive density, conforms to provincial and municipal policies, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the amendments and the securing of a Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 50-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to Metrolinx, which is expropriating the subject lands for a subway extension.

The Tribunal deferred a request to consolidate the appeals with a related site-specific appeal and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

This was the first Case Management Conference for two appeals regarding an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 28-storey apartment building in Richmond Hill.

The Tribunal denied a request for Party Status but granted Participant Status to several individuals.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day hearing for both appeals to be heard together and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), Distrikt Developments, and Silwell Developments Limited against the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law.

The Town and BILD agreed to schedule a motion hearing to address a threshold jurisdictional issue regarding BILD's requested relief for expanded parkland credits.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion hearing for November 28, 2024, and set a timetable for the exchange of motion materials.

The appellants appealed By-law No. 144-2021 passed by the Town of Fort Erie.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and amended the by-law to include special provisions for the Core Mixed Use 2 (CMU2-698) Zone, regulating permitted uses, setbacks, building heights, and planting strips.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit stacked townhouses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident's association.

The parties advised that a settlement had been reached, and the Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing for October 28, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference concerning appeals against a municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications propose the development of 14 freehold townhouses.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a seven-day hearing of the merits for April 2025, and set a telephone conference call for January 2025 to receive a status report on settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an application by Gerry Crepin Cartage Limited for a Category 1 - Class 'A' licence to operate an aggregate pit.

The parties resolved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to the 5-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 3, 2025.

The appellant appealed the conditional approval of a development permit to re-establish an institutional use (elementary school) on the subject property.

At the Case Management Conference, the appellant clarified his concerns related to the Niagara Escarpment Commission's public notice procedures rather than the permit itself.

The appellant subsequently withdrew his appeal.

Pursuant to section 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the decision to conditionally approve the development permit was deemed confirmed.

During a telephone conference call, the Tribunal addressed a dispute regarding the handling of an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) prepared by expert witnesses.

Counsel for one of the parties had substantively revised the ASF to align wording with planning documents and preserve questions of law.

The Tribunal directed that the ASF must be submitted as signed by the experts, and that counsel are not permitted to alter the ASF beyond visual formatting or grammatical corrections, as doing so interferes with the outcome of the experts' meeting.

The appellants brought a motion seeking an order for discovery, an affidavit of documents from the City, and an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing regarding a $4.1 million cost recovery order for an environmental spill.

The appellants argued that the City's document productions were deficient and illegible.

The City opposed the adjournment but agreed during the hearing to provide a sworn affidavit of documents.

The Tribunal ordered the City to deliver the affidavit of documents in a legible and searchable format and maintained the scheduled hearing dates, finding that the appellants were entitled to file reply submissions and were not case splitting.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential lot into two and reduce the minimum lot width from 18.0 metres to 15.2 metres.

The Tribunal heard unopposed expert planning evidence that the proposed lots would be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood, maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and represent appropriate residential intensification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, authorized the variances, and granted provisional consent subject to conditions.

The parties submitted a revised Procedural Order on consent following an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the revised Procedural Order, setting new dates for the hearing and pre-hearing steps regarding an appeal of conditions imposed on permission for the construction of an armour stone wall.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the fourth case management conference, the parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled 12-day merit hearing to allow time for the review of a revised development application and for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, cancelled the merit hearing, and scheduled a fifth case management conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the passing of Official Plan Amendment 24 by the Town of Amherstburg.

The parties indicated that a settlement was promising but pending final instructions from the County.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings in the event the matter proceeds to a merit hearing.

The applicants appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-storey apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised instruments to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with regional and local official plans, and representative of good planning for transit-oriented development.

The appeals were allowed and the revised instruments were approved.

The appellant appealed the revocation of an Environmental Compliance Approval for a non-hazardous solid waste transfer facility.

During the hearing, after the appellant's first witness was cross-examined, the appellant received instructions to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the appeal withdrawn on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by Queen Street Post Inc. regarding the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as heritage alteration and demolition applications.

The appeals relate to a proposed 272-unit residential development at 1117 Queen Street West.

The order sets the hearing dates for July 2025 and outlines the procedural steps, issues list, and order of evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding proposed Amendment No. PC 225 22 to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, which would amend agricultural policies to allow for on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas.

The Tribunal granted party status to Michael and Mark Krapez and Regal Point Elk Farm without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing commencing on March 24, 2025, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.