OLT 2024

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Greater Sudbury's decision to amend a zoning by-law to permit a six-storey retirement home.

The City did not attend and indicated it would not participate.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use rental building.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Concen Development Limited concerning a proposed mixed-use development in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted party status to Protect Thornhill and the Beverley Glen Ratepayers’ Association.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the City time to review revised plans and finalize the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation by the respondent municipality of a property owned by the claimants.

The parties expected to have settlement discussions and potentially request mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing commencing April 8, 2025, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the case.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

The applications seek to permit a residential development consisting of eight multiple dwellings and townhouses.

The procedural order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, and deadlines for the exchange of evidence.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 13-storey residential development.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification, a 13-storey building would be excessive and conflict with the planned context.

The Tribunal approved the redesignation to Medium-High Density Residential but limited the maximum building height to 7 storeys, requiring a transition to lower-density townhouses.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's request for a reduced parking standard but agreed that a Holding provision for servicing was unnecessary.

The appeals were allowed in part.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 58-storey residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle subject to the fulfillment of conditions, and adjourned the site plan appeal sine die.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Middleburg Developments Inc. and 1819213 Ontario Inc. against the Region of York and the Town of Georgina concerning an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Tribunal approved a phased approach for the hearings, finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List for the first phase, and scheduled a four-day video hearing for the Official Plan Amendment issues and a subsequent Case Management Conference for the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment issues.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on an application for a temporary use zoning by-law to permit on-site rock crushing for up to two years during the construction of a residential subdivision.

The Township argued the mobile crusher was a 'major facility' under the Provincial Policy Statement and raised concerns about noise, dust, and endangered species.

The Tribunal found the crusher was a temporary construction-related emissions source, not a major facility, and that noise and dust could be adequately mitigated through a Best Management Practices Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, withholding its final order until the by-law is in final form.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of a property in Toronto by Metrolinx.

The parties agreed to a four-week hearing on the merits and finalized a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled the 19-day video hearing to commence on February 3, 2025, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals from the City of Brantford's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applicant proposed a 141-unit townhouse development on a former industrial site.

Two adjacent industrial operators, SC Johnson & Son Inc. and Hartmann Canada, requested and were granted party status, citing concerns that the proposed residential density would inhibit their manufacturing operations due to noise and traffic.

The Tribunal scheduled a 20-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding the appellant's appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the municipality to permit a townhouse development.

A Motion to Dismiss was withdrawn by the applicant and the municipality.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day Hearing on the Merits and approved the Procedural Order on consent.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to two residents' organizations on the condition they present a joint case, and granted participant status to several condominium corporations.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a nine-day hearing on the merits.

The applicants appealed the Township of Tay Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a residential property to create a new lot.

The subject property is located in a rural shoreline area outside of a settlement area.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence of the Township that the proposed severance was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the Growth Plan, the County Official Plan, the Township Official Plan, or the Zoning By-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Markham brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 12-day merit hearing regarding appeals for non-decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The City argued the hearing was premature pending the completion of the Yonge Corridor Secondary Plan.

The Applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause prejudicial delay and violate the Clergy Principle.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the City had sufficient guidance to assess the applications, and that the prejudice of delay and the need for procedural fairness outweighed the City's concerns.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals of the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment No. 130, the City requested an amendment to the Procedural Order to change the order of argument so it could present first.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the City failed to demonstrate undue prejudice to justify altering the previously ordered procedure, especially since evidence would be submitted in writing.

The Tribunal granted a joint request to adjourn the merit hearing to allow the parties to consider impending provincial legislation.

The Tribunal issued an administrative order granting party status to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

In a previous decision, the Tribunal noted that the Ministry could be granted party status administratively if all parties consented.

As all parties advised there was no opposition, the request for party status was granted.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval of a development permit for the construction of a new dwelling and septic system.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Hearing Officer noted that no meaningful discussions had occurred between the parties and no Procedural Order or Issues List had been provided.

The Hearing Officer scheduled a second Case Management Conference to organize the appeals and encouraged the parties to explore settlement.

The appellants appealed compliance orders issued by the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority regarding alleged failures to meet tire collection system requirements under O. Reg. 225/18.

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Tribunal to vary the compliance orders to require reporting on accessibility and operational compliance procedures rather than an external audit.

The Tribunal found the proposed revised orders facilitated compliance with the regulation, addressed provincial interest objectives, and were in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part and the compliance orders were varied accordingly.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 569-2013.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement regarding various regulations in the Residential Apartment, Commercial, Commercial Residential, and Commercial Residential Employment Zone Categories.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence provided by the City, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with provincial policies and the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and directed the City to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.