OLT 2024

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Following a settlement between one appellant and the Town, the parties sought approval of minor amendments to clarify the by-law's language regarding the timing of land value assessments and the definition of development, aligning it with sections 41 and 42(6.4) of the Act.

The Tribunal approved the amendments on consent, resolving that appellant's appeal, while the appeals of the other parties remain ongoing.

The appellants appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 44 (Glen Williams Secondary Plan) by the Town of Halton Hills and modified by the Region of Halton.

Following a case management conference, the Tribunal was advised that the final remaining appellant had withdrawn its appeal.

Pursuant to subsection 17(39) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal confirmed the withdrawal of all appeals and ordered that OPA 44 is final and came into full force and effect on the date the last appeal was withdrawn.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the development of two additional residential buildings at 20 Godstone Road.

Following a settlement hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in principle.

After being advised that the pre-conditions were cleared to the City's satisfaction, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendment to Zoning By-law 569-2013.

The City of Pickering brought a motion requesting partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 38 (OPA 38), which facilitates redevelopment and intensification along the Kingston Road Corridor.

Several site-specific appeals had been filed against OPA 38.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the unappealed portions of OPA 38 are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conform to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion and approved OPA 38 in part, noting that this partial approval would not prejudice the remaining site-specific appeals.

The applicants appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit a 141-unit residential subdivision.

At a status hearing, the parties advised they were continuing settlement discussions and requested an adjournment sine die.

To ensure proper docket management, the Tribunal instead scheduled a further status hearing by telephone conference call for March 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to receive status updates on multiple remaining appeals against the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on various site-specific and topic-specific appeals, noted several withdrawals and ongoing settlement discussions, and scheduled a further case management conference for May 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's modified approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

Due to an administrative error by the City, notice of the initial Case Management Conference was not provided, causing a delay.

On consent, the appellant requested a Status Hearing to schedule the merit hearing to avoid further prejudice.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing for June 2025 and set dates for the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

A first Case Management Conference was held for an appeal by the developer concerning the value of a cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution paid under protest to the municipality.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a two-day video hearing for May 2025.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the five requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The appellant appealed the passing of heritage designation by-laws by the City for two properties subject to an approved comprehensive redevelopment application.

The appellant subsequently filed heritage alteration permits to facilitate the removal of existing structures.

The parties requested a further case management conference be scheduled after the City's deadline to review the permits, as the appellant intends to appeal the permit decisions and seek consolidation.

The Tribunal agreed and scheduled a further case management conference for May 16, 2025.

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

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties agreed to evaluate a possible resolution through mediation and requested a 20-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for October 2025 and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's refusal of applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to facilitate the development of 37 estate homes.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was informed that the parties are engaged in mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing commencing June 2, 2025, and ordered the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order by December 31, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021.

The parties requested an adjournment to finalize settlements, but the Tribunal refused, noting the appeals had languished for nearly three years.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing for June 2025, allowing the parties time to settle beforehand if possible, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amended Procedural Order following a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 30 Duke Street Limited against the City of Kitchener.

The appeals relate to the City's failure to make decisions on proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as an appeal under the Ontario Heritage Act.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal amended the Procedural Order to add a participant, update the style of cause, and add co-counsel for the City.

The Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend the procedural order.

The deadline for the submission of the witness list was extended from December 5, 2024, to December 9, 2024.

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a minor variance to change the minimum setback from a front lot line for an accessory building.

The appellant sought to convert an existing dwelling into an accessory building located closer to the street than the front wall of the new primary dwelling.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence provided by the Town, the Tribunal found that the variance satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions.

The City of Kitchener brought a motion to dismiss appeals against its Protected Major Transit Station Area (PMTSA) zoning by-law amendment, arguing the appeals targeted maximum building height and density, which are prohibited grounds under subsections 34(19.5) and (19.6) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that while appeals directly challenging maximum height and density are prohibited, the legislation does not create blanket immunity for the entire by-law.

The Tribunal dismissed the portions of the appeals seeking mapping changes, finding they effectively targeted maximum building height.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeals to proceed to a hearing regarding the built-form performance standards, provided the challenges are limited to aspects that do not directly drive maximum height or density.

The Town of Collingwood brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. regarding a proposed 69-unit residential development.

The Town argued the appeals had no reasonable prospect of success due to a potential Ministry of Transportation bypass and concerns from the local conservation authority regarding a proposed watercourse crossing.

The Tribunal found that the potential bypass was not a 'planned corridor' under the Provincial Planning Statement and that the conservation authority's concerns did not render the appeals hopeless.

The Tribunal also denied the Town's alternative request to phase the hearing, finding that a single comprehensive hearing would be more efficient.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The applicant appealed the refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a sign shop establishment.

The parties reached a full settlement on consent.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Zoning By-law was amended to permit commercial indoor storage within the existing building.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 69-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and scheduled an eight-day video hearing to commence in June 2025.