OLT 2024

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding appeals by Old Second South Inc. against the Township of Springwater's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision.

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

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct technical errors in a previous decision dated August 22, 2024.

The amendment modified two conditions of consent regarding the submission of a registered plan for a road allowance and the payment of cash-in-lieu for parkland dedication.

In all other respects, the original decision remained unchanged.

The appellant appealed the City of London's failure to make a decision on a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision within the prescribed timeframe under s. 51(34) of the Planning Act.

At a scheduled settlement hearing, the parties advised they were not ready to proceed due to the appellant's failure to file a revised proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order imposing strict deadlines for document exchange and the scheduling of a future hearing.

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

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal, which was endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the revised zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, contingent on the satisfaction of several pre-requisite conditions including infrastructure and servicing requirements.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's decision to delete a self-storage warehouse as a permitted use from site-specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed five-storey self-storage warehouse represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planners, concluding that the development would efficiently use a vacant, constrained property and facilitate the urbanization of the adjacent road.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal from the Town's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment for a 26-unit residential development.

A self-represented party requested a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that proper public notice was not provided because the notice allegedly mischaracterized the existing zoning.

The Tribunal found that a disagreement over the interpretation of the zoning by-law did not constitute a failure to provide notice and dismissed the request.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant and the Town had reached a settlement, scheduled a two-day hearing on the merits, and approved the procedural directions and issues list.

The appellant appealed a minor variance application to permit the building of a sleeping cabin.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its previous decision dated August 7, 2024.

The amendments corrected a paragraph referencing the Township's Official Plan and changed a word in one of the conditions.

In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.

The applicant appealed the City of Woodstock's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 19-unit townhouse development.

The City did not call any witnesses or submit evidence at the hearing.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the applicant, the Tribunal found that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Oxford County Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 78-unit townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with provincial policy, conformed to applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

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

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to facilitate a 29-storey building.

Following a public hearing where the Tribunal approved the amendment in principle, the Tribunal issued a final order allowing the appeal in part and approving the final form of the zoning by-law amendment.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a residential property into three lots and for associated minor variances for reduced lot widths and side yard setbacks.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed infill development optimized a large corner lot, respected the neighbourhood character, and met the criteria under the Planning Act.

The provisional consent and minor variances were approved subject to conditions, including municipal servicing and tree preservation requirements.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an application by the statutory authority to determine compensation payable to the registered owner for the expropriation of a property in Toronto.

The Tribunal approved the parties' revised draft Procedural Order, which included provisions for Tribunal-facilitated mediation, and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence in November 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1463292 Ontario Inc. and Taylor Rogers against the Town of Oakville's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Heritage Permit applications for a 57-unit development.

The Tribunal directed the appellants to submit a revised proposal and supporting documents to the Town and Region of Halton, and ordered the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List for a 15-day hearing scheduled for early 2025.

The claimant brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 20-day hearing regarding compensation for an expropriated leasehold interest.

The claimant sought the adjournment to pursue a Superior Court application, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make determinations under section 41 of the Expropriations Act regarding the abandonment of expropriated land.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting the late timing of the request, the lack of an emergency, the prejudice to the ready respondent, and the Tribunal's interest in maintaining its fixed hearing schedule.

The Tribunal also observed, without deciding, that it arguably has jurisdiction to make findings of fact under section 41.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Approval, and Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement for a 70-storey mixed-use building incorporating heritage retention.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and municipal plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

Metrolinx brought a motion for directions regarding undertakings and refusals from the examination for discovery of the claimant's representative in an expropriation proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to produce financial statements and tax returns for the three years prior to the expropriation, finding them relevant to determining the highest and best use of the property.

The Tribunal also permitted Metrolinx to conduct a further examination of up to one hour regarding the financial documents and certain concept plans.

Other requests for further production were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Chatham-Kent's Development Charges By-law No. 148-2022 under section 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised development charge rates to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert evidence that the revised rates conformed with the Act and did not increase the amounts payable, the Tribunal approved the settlement and ordered the by-law amended accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing for a dispute over the determination of land value and the amount payable to the City of Toronto for cash in lieu of parkland under the Planning Act.

The hearing is scheduled for four days commencing May 13, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order amending the exchange dates for the upcoming hearing scheduled to commence on October 28, 2024, regarding appeals by Donshep Developments Limited for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a residential and commercial development in the City of Toronto.

A Case Management Conference was held to re-open an appeal by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications, as well as a related Heritage Act permit appeal.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals, received updates on the municipality's conformity exercise, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 15-day hearing.