OLT 2024

The appellants appealed the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority's decision to deny a building permit for a renovation project on a rural property.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits to commence on July 8, 2024, and directed the parties to file a draft procedural order and issues list.

The applicant appealed the Township of Severn Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced front yard and watercourse setback for a reconstructed deck.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement requiring a Development Agreement for shoreline restoration and the removal of an existing free-standing deck.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the settlement met the four tests for a minor variance and authorized the variances in principle, withholding its final order pending execution of the agreement.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an animal kennel on an agricultural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit the kennel with a reduced setback of 1.40 metres from any lot line, subject to conditions limiting the number of dogs and regulating noise.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it facilitates a permitted rural land use and ensures adequate separation from sensitive uses.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a correction notice to amend the Title of Proceeding in a previous decision dated January 23, 2024.

The correction correctly identifies Nicole Auty as Counsel rather than a Representative.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval.

The Tribunal granted party status to three entities on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that the Site Plan Application appeal be determined separately from the Zoning By-Law Amendment appeal.

A 9-day hearing was scheduled for August 2024.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to permit a single detached dwelling, the Tribunal consolidated the three files on consent.

As the parties had made substantial progress toward a resolution, the Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to decide on concurrent applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application for a 12-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a four-day merit hearing.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for directions seeking partial approval of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, save and except for certain sections under appeal.

The City also sought to scope the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to site-specific or area-specific appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the notices of appeal for both respondents only provided reasons related to specific properties and did not justify city-wide appeals.

The Tribunal deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law to be in full force and effect and ordered the respondents to scope their appeals accordingly.

The Tribunal previously allowed the applicant's appeal in part on an interim basis, approving a Zoning By-law Amendment in principle to permit the construction of a single-story dwelling, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.

Having been advised that the conditions for the release of the Final Order were satisfied, the Tribunal issued its Final Order approving the Development Agreement conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Cobourg Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit an increased floor space in a coach house, allowing the second storey to become habitable.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it met the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was minor in nature, and was desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions, including screening to protect neighbour privacy and landscaping requirements.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 65 Agnes Inc. against the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 29-storey apartment building.

The parties requested Tribunal-facilitated mediation.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduling a nine-day hearing on the merits to commence in June 2024.

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement that reduced the density, height, and altered the housing form to address public and municipal concerns.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Region of Halton's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 54 (the Trafalgar Secondary Plan) to the Town of Milton Official Plan.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding approximately 61 policies, leaving 16 policies unresolved.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the resolved policies were consistent with provincial policy and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, modifying and approving the resolved policies while withholding approval on the unresolved policies.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to divide a residential lot containing a historic home into three parcels, as well as the Town's passing of a heritage designation by-law.

The Tribunal found that the property was not a farm remnant and that neither the deep front yard setback nor the former driveshed constituted protectable heritage attributes under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the severances and variances subject to conditions, including a heritage easement to protect views of the historic home, finding the proposal consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an industrial warehouse and distribution building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included site-specific zoning provisions and a holding provision to secure the extension of a local road.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment was consistent with provincial policy and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The St. Joseph Island Planning Board brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of its refusal to grant a consent application for the severance of a waterlot and shore road allowance.

The Board argued the appeal lacked valid planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success because the proposed lot lacked public road frontage and could not be serviced.

The Tribunal found that the appellant raised genuine, contested factual and planning issues regarding road access and servicing that required adjudication at a full hearing.

The motion to dismiss was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for a medical hyperbaric oxygen therapy centre.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant withdrew two variances related to parking spaces.

The remaining variance sought to allow the main front entrance to face the rear parking lot to provide privacy for patients.

The City did not oppose the remaining variance.

The Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part, authorizing the variance.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under the Planning Act after the Town of Ajax refused to accept its site plan applications.

The Town argued the applications were premature because the required pre-consultation meeting had not occurred and the related official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision were not yet in effect.

The Tribunal found that the Town's refusal was not authorized by the Planning Act, as the municipality cannot use a pre-consultation by-law to indefinitely delay or refuse an application, nor can it demand an approved OPA, ZBA, or DPS as a complete application requirement unless explicitly stated in the official plan.

The Tribunal deemed the applications complete as of June 30, 2023.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of zoning by-law amendments and draft plan of subdivision modifications in the City of Thorold, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to several entities, including Hydro One Networks Inc., Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc., and Rolling Meadows Land Corp. The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together and consolidated certain appeals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for May 30, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by DRC (Markham) Inc. against the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications propose a mixed-use development with two 40-storey towers and nine townhouse units.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence on November 21, 2024.