OLT 2024

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of Durham's Development Charges By-law No. 42-2023.

The Region requested time to answer questions from the appellants to assist in identifying issues and exploring settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and directed the parties to exchange draft issues lists and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a temporary motor vehicle sales, leasing, and/or rental facility on a vacant lot.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances, including a change of use, reduced rear yard setback, lack of a building, and gravel parking surface, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act when applied on a temporary basis.

The Tribunal authorized the variances for a period of two years, subject to conditions regarding site layout and entrance paving, noting the surrounding area's current state of transition and ongoing LRT construction.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum parking ratio for a mixed-use development from 0.65 to 0.5 spaces per apartment dwelling unit.

The municipality did not appear at the hearing.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as it supported transit-oriented development and active transportation goals.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was approved subject to a condition limiting its application to specific development blocks.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit a seasonal cottage to be used as a year-round dwelling.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents on consent, noted the parties' openness to mediation, approved the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a nine-storey mid-rise building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that resolved all issues, including a revised parking supply.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with local plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The moving party, R.W. Tomlinson Limited, sought an order for costs against the Town of Greater Napanee and Keep Napanee Great following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for an asphalt plant.

Tomlinson alleged that the respondents acted unreasonably by pursuing an appeal with no reasonable prospect of success and raising irrelevant evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required for a costs award under Rule 23.9 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal from the refusal of consent and minor variance applications by the Township of Woolwich Committee of Adjustment.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The appellants appealed the City of Guelph's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential development consisting of cluster townhouses and an apartment building.

The City subsequently withdrew its objections after being satisfied with the stormwater management strategy.

An adjacent landowner argued the development would landlock its property and requested a Holding symbol to force coordinated development.

The Tribunal found that the lack of access was a pre-existing condition and that the proposed development represented good planning.

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

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 58-unit residential subdivision in a rural settlement area.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, the zoning by-law amendment was directed, and the draft plan of subdivision was approved subject to conditions.

The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an oversized accessory storage building for a landscaping home industry.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved a revised Zoning By-law Amendment, noting that the original draft improperly attempted to regulate the user rather than the use of the land by specifying who could be employed.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for a 12-storey mixed-use building.

The parties requested scheduling of a second CMC and a Merit Hearing to allow for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal ordered a second CMC for September 11, 2024, and a seven-day Merit Hearing commencing January 28, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the municipality's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit the conversion of a detached dwelling into a semi-detached dwelling.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing for September 2024 and noted the parties' intent to engage in Tribunal-led mediation.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision to permit a 24-storey mixed-use building and a 9-storey apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the applicant withdrew the Official Plan Amendment appeal.

Based on the uncontradicted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding the final Order until various conditions, including finalization of plans and reports, are met.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications for a 35-unit single-detached residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local official plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed and the planning instruments were approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to the property owners, Kirby 27 Development Limited and Copper Kirby Development Limited.

Despite the appellants' request to delay scheduling due to pending court matters, the Tribunal approved the Draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 19-day video hearing on the merits to commence in June 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for land compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the Respondent's use of the Claimant's property for the construction of the Milliken GO Station.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a consent procedural order and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits for January 2025.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment on the basis that the notice of appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning grounds.

The appellants, who operate a dairy farm, appealed the by-law due to concerns about Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) requirements and potential conflicts with proposed residential lots.

The moving party argued MDS considerations did not apply because the subject lands were entirely within a Hamlet Designation.

The Tribunal found that the boundaries of the Hamlet Designation were unclear and presented a legitimately contested threshold question.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the notice of appeal disclosed requisite planning grounds and dismissed the motion.

The appellant appealed the deferral of a consent application by the Town of Uxbridge Land Division Committee.

The application sought to sever a residential property to create two new lots for single-detached dwellings.

The proposal was revised to include the sale of a 2-metre strip to the Town for a pedestrian walkway, and the required minor variances for reduced lot frontages were subsequently approved by the Committee of Adjustment.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with regional and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The claimants sought compensation under the Expropriation Act following the expropriation of their property by the municipality for parkland.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal ratified a consent Procedural Order, directed the parties to explore Tribunal-assisted mediation, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and an eight-day Merit Hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order directing that two appeals by Oshawa PUC Energy Services Inc. and Zooshare Biogas Development Inc. against a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act be heard together.

A five-day hearing was scheduled to commence on December 2, 2024.