OLT 2024

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a tourist establishment.

Prior to the hearing, the applicants and the Township reached a settlement.

At the hearing, three individuals sought party status to oppose the settlement, raising environmental, property value, and Indigenous consultation concerns, and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Tribunal applied the Oakville factors and denied party status, finding their participation as parties was not necessary to adjudicate the issues and would prejudice the applicants.

The individuals were granted participant status instead, and the merit hearing was adjourned to allow them time to file participant statements.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit the development of a four-storey, eight-unit apartment building.

The requested variances included relief for minimum lot area, maximum lot coverage, and minimum rear yard setback.

The Tribunal found that the lot area and lot coverage variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and represented good planning.

However, the Tribunal refused the rear yard setback variance because it permitted a minor penetration into the angular plane that would impact the light of surrounding low-rise residential uses, which was inconsistent with the City's Urban Design Manual and therefore failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 27 Henning Avenue Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a 34-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to several adjacent landowners and a residents' association.

A 10-day hearing was scheduled for May 2025, and the parties were directed to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of rental cabins and an accessory dwelling on a property formerly used as a fishing resort.

The central issue was whether the proposal constituted a 'new development' or a 'redevelopment' under the County Official Plan, which prohibits new development on private roads.

The Tribunal found that the proposal was a new development, as the previous use ceased in the 1980s and all structures would be new.

Consequently, the proposed development on a private road did not conform to the County Official Plan, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry referred an application by the applicant for a Class A, Category 2 quarry licence to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal finalized the list of objectors, noted ongoing settlement discussions, scheduled a three-day video hearing, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

In an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 33-storey mixed-use building, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order on consent substituting 274 Viewmount Developments Inc. as a party in place of Luis and Eduarda Matias, who had sold their property to the new corporation.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a high-rise residential development.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 39-storey building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the instruments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

At a second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal administratively consolidated appeals concerning site-specific exemptions to the Town of Whitby's Official Plan Amendment No. 126.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a nine-day hearing for the consolidated appeals and issued an order bringing the unappealed portions of OPA 126 into full force and effect pursuant to section 17(39) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding revised conditions of approval for a draft plan of subdivision, the Tribunal granted party status to the applicant, Colonnade Management Inc. The parties indicated a desire to pursue Tribunal-led mediation to resolve compatibility issues between the proposed development and the adjacent VIA Rail Station.

The Tribunal directed the parties to initiate mediation and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a partially enclosed carport addition with a reduced interior side yard setback and zero distance from the principal building.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the revised proposal, which corrected the carport height to 12 feet and increased the side yard setback to 0.85 metres, satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the modified variances were authorized.

This was the second Case Management Conference for an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 35-storey residential building in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to two individuals and scheduled a 10-day Merit Hearing to commence on March 10, 2025.

The parties were directed to submit a revised draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances to permit a two-storey detached accessory building with a second-storey dwelling unit on a lot serviced by a private septic system.

The Tribunal found that the variances for building height and rear yard setback were minor and desirable, provided the second floor is used only for storage.

However, the Tribunal held that permitting an accessory dwelling unit without full municipal water and sanitary sewer services did not conform to the Zoning By-law and was not minor.

The appeal was allowed in part, authorizing the height and setback variances subject to conditions prohibiting the accessory dwelling unit.

The Tribunal heard a written settlement motion regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 54 (Trafalgar Secondary Plan) in the Town of Milton.

Based on the uncontradicted land use planning evidence of a Registered Professional Planner, the Tribunal found that the remaining policies, which largely address the Natural Heritage System, are consistent with provincial policies and represent good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the modified policies of OPA 54.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the pre-hearing steps and organization of an 8-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 3, 2025.

The hearing will determine the compensation owed to the claimant arising from the Ministry of Transportation's partial expropriation of the claimant's land.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by CBM Aggregates against the Township of North Dumfries' failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the extension of an existing sand and gravel pit.

The Tribunal determined it was appropriate to schedule the hearing for the Planning Act appeal without waiting for the related Aggregate Resources Act matter, as the delay for the latter was indeterminate.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for August 2025, and a Procedural Order was issued.

The appellant appealed the City of London's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as well as the failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision, to permit the redevelopment of a former cookie factory into a mixed-use community.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the appellant withdrew the OPA appeal, and the Tribunal approved the ZBLA in principle based on uncontested expert planning evidence.

The ZBLA facilitates a mix of residential and commercial uses, including seniors' housing and the adaptive reuse of a heritage building.

The Draft Plan of Subdivision appeal was adjourned to a future settlement hearing.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 44-storey residential building.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 43-storey proposal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and represents good planning by providing appropriate intensification near a major transit station area.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending satisfaction of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications for a 45-storey residential building.

The Tribunal scheduled an eight-day merit hearing to commence on October 16, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Grmada Holdings Inc. from the City of Markham's failure to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and participant status to one residents' group, while denying other participant requests due to non-appearance.

The Tribunal also resolved a dispute over the wording of the Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing for May 2025.

The Peel District School Board appealed the City of Mississauga's decision to designate the Lakeview Park School property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the consent of the parties and the expert affidavit evidence of a heritage planner, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and ordered that the Designation By-law be amended with a revised Schedule 'B' detailing the property's cultural heritage value and attributes.