Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
November 26, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000278
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 69(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant:
Slessor Square LPI Inc.
Description:
Protest the levying of fees in relation to an application for OPA and ZBA Applications
Property Address:
388 Main St. E, 17 Prince St, 389,395 399 405, 409 Pearl St.
Municipality/UT:
Milton/Halton
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000278
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000278
OLT Case Name:
Slessor Square LPI Inc. v. Milton (Town)
Heard:
September 11 and October 14, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Slessor Square LPI Inc.
R. Cheeseman S. Fleming
Town of Milton
K. Stavrakos
DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1The Tribunal convened a Merit Hearing relating to an appeal filed by Slessor Square LPI Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 69(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”) concerning the payment of fees made under protest to the Town of Milton (“Town”). The fees paid by the Appellant relate to applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) concerning lands municipally known as 388 Main Street East, 389, 395, 399, 405 and 409 Pearl Street, as well as 17 Prince Street (collectively, the “subject property”). The fees were calculated in accordance with Schedule J of Town of Milton User Fee By-Law 062-2024 (“2024 fee by-law”).
2On May 19, 2023, the Appellant attended a pre-consultation meeting (“2023 pre-consultation meeting”) with the Town. Following that meeting a Record of Pre-Consultation and Memo dated June 16, 2023, found at Tab 4 of Exhibit 3 (“Pre-Con Memo”) was prepared. The Pre-Con Memo outlined the Appellant’s proposal to redevelop the subject property with an 18-storey building, which included approximately 660 square metres of commercial space and 371 residential units (“original proposal”). The Pre-Con Memo included an assessment of fees in the amount of $92,007.22 payable by the Appellant based on both the 2023 in-effect fees and the original proposal.
3On March 25, 2025, the Appellant submitted applications for an OPA and ZBA proposing to redevelop the subject property with a high-density mixed-use development consisting of an eight-storey podium and 18-storey tower comprised of 815 square metres of ground floor commercial space and 570 residential units (“proposed development”). The Appellant submitted a cheque to the Town in the amount of $231,371.70 for payment of fees as required under the 2024 fee by-law.
4At the 2023 pre-consultation meeting, the Town identified reports that were required in order for the Town to deem the applications complete. The Appellant’s OPA and ZBA applications were accompanied by the following, as requested by the Town:
- Prepared by Arcadis:
o Signed and Commissioned OPA and ZBA Application Form, dated March 18, 2025
o Draft OPA and Schedules, undated
o Draft ZBLA and Schedules, undated
o Site Plan, dated March 21, 2025
o Planning Justification Report (contains Public Engagement Strategy and Surrounding Context Map), dated March 25, 2025
- Prepared by J.D. Barnes Ltd.:
o Plan of Survey, dated October 28, 2024
- Prepared by Soil-Mat Engineers & Consultants Ltd.:
o Phase One Environmental Site Assessment, dated May 26, 2023
- Prepared by Soil-Mat Engineers & Consultants Ltd.:
o Geotechnical Investigation, dated February 4, 2025
- Prepared by KNYMH Inc.
o Underground Plans, dated February 25, 2025
o Floor Plans, dated February 25, 2025
o Elevations, dated February 25, 2025
o 3D Views, dated February 25, 2025
o Building Sections, dated February 25, 2025
o Design Impact Analysis, dated December 2, 2024
- Prepared by MHBC Planning Ltd.:
o Heritage Impact Assessment, dated March 7, 2025
o Urban Design Brief, dated March 2025
- Prepared by adesso design inc.
o Tree Protection Plan, dated December 2, 2024
o Landscape Plan, dated January 23, 2025
- Prepared by MTE Consultants:
o Functional Site Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, dated February 25, 2025
o Functional Grading and Servicing Plan, dated February 25, 2025
o Existing Conditions Plan, dated February 25, 2025
- Prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions Ltd.:
o Traffic Impact & Parking Study, dated March 2025
- Prepared by dBA Acoustical Consultants Inc.:
o Noise & Vibration Impact Study, dated November 2024
5On April 22, 2025, the Appellant appealed payment of the fees to the Tribunal.
DECISION
6The Tribunal finds that the Appellant did not demonstrate that the OPA and ZBA application fees paid under protest pursuant to the 2024 fee by-law were unreasonable. The appeal is dismissed for the reasons set out below.
HEARING AND EVIDENCE
7The Merit Hearing was the first hearing event pertaining to the proceedings and was held pursuant to a Notice of Hearing dated July 31, 2025, issued by the Tribunal. Given the nature of the appeal, there were no other Parties having an interest in the proceedings.
8The Tribunal heard evidence from the following individuals, who were qualified to provide opinion evidence as follows:
a. Carmen N. Jandu, Land Use Planning, on behalf of the Appellant;
b. Sean-Michael Stephen, User Fees, including Planning Fees, on behalf of the Town; and
c. Jessica Tijanic, Land Use Planning, on behalf of the Town.
9The Tribunal also heard lay evidence proffered by the Principle Director of the Appellant, Adam Nesbitt, on behalf of the Appellant.
Legislative Regime
10For ease of reference, the following sections of the Act and by-laws relate to the appeal. Section 69(1) of the Act sets out the provisions for the setting of tariffs as follows:
Tariff of fees
69(1) The council of a municipality, by by-law, and a planning board, by resolution, may establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of planning matters, which tariff shall be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to the municipality or to a committee of adjustment or land division committee constituted by the council of the municipality or to the planning board in respect of the processing of each type of application provided for in the tariff.
11Section 69(3) of the Act sets out the process for appealing the levying of a fee or the amount of a fee as follows:
Payment under protest: appeal to Tribunal
(3) Any person who is required to pay a fee under subsection (1) for the processing of an application in respect of a planning matter may pay the amount of the fee under protest and thereafter appeal to the Tribunal against the levying of the fee or the amount of the fee by giving written notice of appeal to the Tribunal within thirty days of payment of the fee.
12Section 69(4) of the Act sets out the powers of the Tribunal when adjudicating an appeal under s. 69 of the Act, as follows:
Hearing
(4) The Tribunal shall hear an appeal made under subsection (3) and shall dismiss the appeal or direct that a refund payment be made to the appellant in such amount as the Tribunal determines.
13Schedule J of the 2024 fee by-law sets out rates and fees for Planning Services. Pursuant to Schedule J, for applications made after January 1, 2025, the fees are as follows:
a. Local Official Plan Amendments are charged a base fee of $51,425.00.
b. Zoning By-law Amendment – Base fee plus per unit fee
i. Base Fee: $26,534.00
ii. Units 0-25: $631.00
iii. Units 26-100: $377.00
iv. Units 100+: $228.00
v. Per square metre of GFA: $2.58
14The Appellant submitted its applications on March 25, 2025, and pursuant to the 2024 fee by-law, the Town advised the Appellant that the 2025 fees would apply resulting in a total fee for the OPA and ZBA applications of $231,371.70. The fee breakdown provided by the Town was as follows:
Proposed Development Total Units: 570 Total Commercial GFA: 815 square metres
Fee Breakdown: Official Plan Amendment: $51,425.00 Zoning By-law Amendment:
Base Fee: $26,634.00
0-25 Units: $15,775.00 (25 units)
26-100 Units: $28,275.00 (75 units)
100+ Units: $107,160.00 (470 units)
Square Metre GFA: $2,102.70 (815 sm)
15The Parties agree that municipal fee by-laws, including the Town’s 2024 fee by-law, are not subject to appeal. The only recourse to challenge a fee is to pay the fee under protest and appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 69(3) of the Act.
Town’s Position
16The Town argued that the focus of the Appellant on its costs to prepare the applications for filing with the Town is not the appropriate measure of reasonableness, rather focus should be placed on whether the Town reasonably assessed what its anticipated costs are. The Town argued that s. 69 of the Act explicitly sets out what fees municipalities are statutorily permitted to charge, being, the municipality’s anticipated cost of processing the type of application in question. On an appeal, the Tribunal must determine whether the fees were unreasonable in the context of what the Act allows a municipality to charge, being the anticipated costs for the application type.
17In 2002, the Town retained Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (“Watson”) to conduct a User Fee Review Study (“Watson Study”) which culminated in the 2022 User Fees Review Study report dated April 19, 2022 (“Watson Report”). Mr. Stephen was involved in the Watson Study and the Watson Report, and he explained that the Watson Study aimed to establish fees that would enable the Town to recover anticipated processing costs in a manner defensible in accordance with the Act and ultimately, allow the Town to achieve full cost recovery. It was Mr. Stephen’s opinion that the Town’s process - assessing the level of staff involvement for each type of application, assigning a cost to the level of effort, and designing the fee to recover anticipated costs - was reasonable and aligned with the requirements set out in s. 69 of the Act.
18Mr. Stephen further noted that s. 69(1) of the Act permits municipalities to set fees based on anticipated costs to process an application type (emphasis added), as opposed to the anticipated costs of an individual application. He explained that municipalities estimate the anticipated annual costs for the application types and design fees to recover the anticipated costs across all applications within that category.
19In assessing the anticipated costs, Mr. Stephen utilized an activity-based costing methodology (“ABC methodology”) which identifies processing activities for application types and determines the costs anticipated to be incurred by the municipality for these activities. Mr. Stephen received input from Town staff on their level of involvement based on historical applications from the 2016 – 2021 period. The full cost of processing each application type was calculated to include both direct, indirect and capital costs, which direct costs consist of salary, wage and benefits, materials and supplies and indirect costs including support and overhead. Mr. Stephen noted that the largest portion of the cost is salary, wage and benefit costs of the Town staff involved in the application process.
20Through the Watson Study process, it was determined that the level of Town staff involvement in an OPA is relatively fixed, which resulted in the Town setting a flat fee for OPA applications. With respect to ZBA applications, if was determined that the level of effort varies with the complexity and size of the application which resulted in the Town setting a flat fee as well as a variable component for ZBA applications. In Mr. Stephen’s evidence, he recognized that the size of a proposal is not the only driver of complexity, but in his experience, he noted that there is a correlation between the size of a proposal and processing complexity. During cross examination, Mr. Stephen acknowledged that following the completion of the Watson Study in 2022, he had not analyzed the actual costs incurred by the Town to process applications to determine whether the anticipated costs were accurate. He further agreed that the correlation between size and complexity was based on his experience and not based on any calculations.
21Ms. Tijanic took the Tribunal through an explanation of the changes, which took place between the 2023 pre-consultation meeting and the submission of the applications for the proposed development which resulted in the increased fees. During this time, the Town realized that it was recovering only a portion of its costs to review development applications, as opposed to full cost recovery. In her Reply Witness Statement, Ms. Tijanic explained that on July 17, 2023, the Town adopted User Fee By-law 058-2023 which updated the Town’s user fees following a comprehensive review done by Watson. In addition to the updated rates, Ms. Tijanic explained that there were substantial changes to the Appellant’s original proposal including an increased unit count from 371 to 570 and an increase in the commercial Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) from 660 square metres (“sm”) to 815 sm.
22Ms. Tijanic acknowledged that if the OPA and ZBA applications are approved, the Appellant will be required to pay further fees at the site plan stage. When given a scenario during cross examination, Ms. Tijanic testified that if an applicant applies for 800 units, they pay fees based on that unit count. Once the process is complete, if the Town approves 600 units, the applicant does not receive a refund for the 200 units which were not approved. The Town argued that the Appellant’s submissions on the absence of rebates to applicants in various scenarios put to the witnesses is irrelevant as the Act does not have a mechanism to provide rebates to applicants if an appeal is launched or if fewer units are approved.
23Ms. Tijanic explained the type of work that goes into application review, including the number of staff and departments involved. She also explained that most applications require multiple submissions, with the second submission often taking approximately the same amount of time for staff to process as the first. Under the current user fee by-law, the Town does not charge for resubmissions of applications. The Town argued that despite the similarity in the preparation and review costs which formed part of the Appellant’s evidence, as Ms. Jandu testified, the preparation costs will likely increase with multiple submissions whereas the Town’s fees are set. The Town argued that the Appellant’s preparation costs are irrelevant as the Act is clear that it is the Town’s costs that are determinative, not those of the Appellant.
24During cross-examination, Ms. Tijanic acknowledged that the work engaged in by the Town to process applications is not specific to an applicant but rather, specific to the application type. In other words, the Town does not track the number of hours spent on an applicant’s file, rather, it tracks the number of hours spent on an application type. Ms. Tijanic further acknowledged that there is no correlation between the application fee charged and the quality of the application. An application that may require eight submissions would be charged the same fee as an application that required one submission.
25In Mr. Stephen’s evidence, he reviewed the fees charged to the Appellant pursuant to the 2024 fee by-law. He opined that a further test of reasonableness of the OPA and ZBA fees imposed by the Town was demonstrated through a comparative analysis that he conducted with 10 municipalities within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (“GTHA”) with populations in excess of 100,000 and that impose a variable ZBA application fee. Mr. Stephen prepared the below table setting out the OPA and ZBA fees that would be imposed by each municipality based on the proposed development.
Rank
Municipality
Total - Combined OPA and ZBA Fee
1
Toronto, City of
$382,307.98
2
Burlington, City of
$271,698.75
3
Pickering, City of
$260,895.00
4
Milton, Town of
$231,371.70
5
Halton Hills, Town of
$218,500.00
6
Mississauga, City of
$199,875.00
7
Brampton, City of
$157,379.00
8
Vaughan, City of
$130,370.90
9
Richmond Hill, Town of
$126,543.00
10
Oakville, Town of
$117,684.65
26The Town’s fees ranked fourth in the above comparison table. Mr. Stephen opined that the Watson Study process and fee design to achieve full cost recovery demonstrates that the Town’s fee structure is reasonable. The table demonstrates that the Town’s fees are in the range imposed by other GTHA municipalities with comparable fee structures which further demonstrates the reasonableness of the fees. The Town referred the Tribunal to Metropia Minto (Sixteenth) Holdings Inc. v. Markham (City) 2025 CanLII 34629 (ON LT) (“Minto”) arguing that some municipalities may charge lower fees, however this may be impacted by whether the municipality is seeking full cost recovery and the level of service provided by the municipality.
27The Town noted that “unreasonable” is not defined and as such, the principles of statutory interpretation direct a review of the legislative context and in this case, one must look at whether the anticipated costs for the type of application was unreasonable. The Town argued that the key principle emerging from jurisprudence is that a fee’s reasonableness requires a connection between the fee and the anticipated processing cost, as was set out in the Minto decision. It further argued that reasonableness is a standard as opposed to correctness and the caselaw demonstrates that a unique fact scenario was present in instances where the Tribunal found a fee to be unreasonable, and no unique circumstance is present in this appeal. The Town emphasized that the Appellant did not present any evidence demonstrating the unreasonableness of the Town’s fees.
Appellant’s Position
28The Appellant submitted that there is no dispute about what the tariff is, nor what the fee is. The dispute between the Parties relates to the reasonableness of the fees. Both Parties agree that “reasonable” or “unreasonableness” is not defined in the Act.
29The Appellant argued that Mr. Stephen did not rely on any real data in determining the fees, but rather, relied solely upon estimates provided by Town staff. Further, Mr. Stephen’s evidence was that salary, wage, and benefits make up most of the costs allocated to each application type. The Appellant argued that this was demonstrative of the unreasonableness of the fees, as the application fees paid by the Appellant in the amount of $231,371.70 could pay the annual salaries of at least two of the Town’s seven planners.
30In explaining the Watson Study and resulting amendment to the fee by-law, Mr. Stephen testified that there is a correlation between the amount of work required to process a ZBA application and the number of units proposed. The Appellant argued that there was no evidence presented to support Mr. Stephen’s testimony, but rather, it was solely based on Mr. Stephen’s conjecture as he acknowledged in cross examination that he had not tested whether there were correlations between the size of the proposal and the work required to process an application. Despite this, the Appellant emphasized that the proposed development was infill located on a complete block bordered on all sides by municipal roads and was simple and straight-forward.
31The Appellant focussed on its costs to prepare the OPA and ZBA applications to file with the Town for approval. Mr. Nesbitt explained that following the 2023 pre-consultation meeting, the original proposal was expanded to respond to Town comments and to the changing provincial policy regime. He further testified that the work set out in paragraph [4] included technical work conducted by external consultants or subsidiaries and their fees included a margin of profit. Mr. Nesbitt testified that in his experience, the fees for the applications paid to the Town were higher than other development applications he has filed in other municipalities.
32Ms. Jandu reviewed the fees that Arcadis charged to the Appellant and confirmed that the fees included overhead, salary and profit. While Ms. Jandu had not worked in the public sector, she has completed peer reviews of reports and testified that her experience has been that peer reviews take less time to conduct than the preparation of a report. The process of conducting a review is limited to the information that is provided and does not include the collection of any information, including relevant policy. Ms. Jandu acknowledged that it is an iterative process and if additional work is required to modify reports, additional fees will be incurred by the Appellant. Ms. Jandu agreed in cross examination that the costs referenced by the Appellant in the appeal are costs to date for the first submission and that typically there will be multiple submissions and costs could double.
33The Appellant argued that the Town’s fee to process the OPA and ZBA applications is unreasonable as the Town merely conducts a review of the reports and applications filed by the Appellant. The Town is not required to prepare any original work which the Appellant argued is where the bulk of the cost originates, not in the review of the work. The Appellant argued that it is unreasonable that the fees incurred to produce the original work amounted to approximately $12,000.00 more than the fees charged by the Town to review the work. Further, the consultants’ fees included profit while the purpose of the tariff is cost recovery for the municipality, it is not an avenue for financial gain or profit by a municipality. The Appellant emphasized that no refund for over-payment of fees would be granted if fewer units were allocated nor would a refund be granted for a shortened review process resulting from appeal to the Tribunal. Both of these examples further demonstrated the unreasonableness of the fees.
34The Appellant argued that the Tribunal could not rely on Mr. Stephen’s comparative analysis of other municipalities’ fees to demonstrate reasonableness. Watson conducted the studies for all of the municipalities used in the comparison, with the exception of Oakville. The Appellant argued that Watson has the “market cornered” so the comparison is not really a comparison at all, except for Oakville which was over $100,000 less than the Town to process the applications.
35The Appellant submitted that the test is reasonableness, and the Tribunal must determine whether the fee charged was reasonable. The Appellant argued that it cannot be determined to be reasonable to charge a similar fee to review applications as it cost to perform the original work that was reviewed. This is reinforced by the absence of any refund for over-payment of fees or shortening of the review process due to an appeal. The Appellant submitted that if the Tribunal finds that the fee is unreasonable, then the Tribunal must further determine what would be reasonable.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
36Pursuant to s. 69(1) of the Act, the fee charged must meet only the anticipated costs of the municipality for processing the application. The powers of the Tribunal pursuant to s. 69(4) of the Act are dismissal of the appeal or a refund in an amount the Tribunal determines. The relevant test is the reasonableness of the fee, or, in other words, whether the fee that was paid under protest has a reasonable connection to the costs incurred by the municipality.
37The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Ms. Tijanic and Mr. Stephen and finds that the Town was thorough in analyzing the anticipated costs of processing applications. The significant increase in fees from the 2023 pre-consultation meeting and the submission of the applications for the proposed development resulted from a changed proposal and the Town’s updated by-law. The design of the Town’s tariff following the Watson Study is an effort to reach full cost recovery and the evidence before the Tribunal was that the resulting fees are reasonable. The Tribunal was referred to the Minto decision and similarly finds that there must be a reasonable connection between the fee and the anticipated costs to process the applications. The fees have a reasonable connection to the anticipated costs as set out in Ms. Tijanic’s evidence and Mr. Stephen’s research conducted throughout the Watson Study.
38The Appellant submitted that the Watson Report relied on estimates from Town staff and real data or actual numbers from Town staff achieved through time dockets would better determine reasonableness. Mr. Stephen agreed in cross examination that actual time would better represent actual costs but added that this is not required under the Act and would be administratively onerous for municipalities to impose. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Stephen and finds that the Act does not require a standard of correctness. The Act is clear that the standard is anticipated costs and the Watson Study and resulting Watson Report demonstrate the comprehensive process undertaken by the Town to determine anticipated costs to process application types.
39The Appellant was critical of Mr. Stephen’s lack of calculations to support his testimony that a sliding scale for ZBA applications was appropriate given that the effort expended on review coincides with the complexity and size of a proposal. To bolster the point, the Appellant used a Kleenex box analogy to argue that the proposed development is straightforward and not complex. The Tribunal preferred Mr. Stephen’s evidence accepting his experience that size is only one of many factors in processing complexity. The Tribunal was not convinced that the fact that the proposed development is a box means that it is inherently straightforward resulting in the fee imposed for the ZBA application was unreasonable.
40The Tribunal agrees with the Town that the appropriate measure of reasonableness is not the cost incurred by the Appellant. The Tribunal’s determination is whether the Town reasonably determined its anticipated costs to process an application. The Act is clear that the municipality’s anticipated costs are determinative. Despite this, the Tribunal will address the Appellant’s main argument of the similarity between the cost to prepare the materials and the fee to review the materials. The Tribunal was repeatedly referred to the Appellant’s costs to produce the materials, however, it is significant that this represents the initial cost. As the Tribunal heard from Ms. Jandu, if further submissions are required, the initial cost will increase whereas the Town’s application fee is only incurred once, regardless of the number of submissions that are reviewed. Despite it not being determinative of the appeal, the Tribunal cannot agree with the Appellant that the review by the Town of the volume of work set out in paragraph [4] above would cost less than the preparation of that work making the fee unreasonable.
41Procedural fairness dictates that the Tribunal must be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that an amount other than the fees calculated in accordance with the 2024 fee by-law would be reasonable. During opening and closing submissions, Counsel for the Appellant submitted that it was unknown what fees would be reasonable noting that the Tribunal must “pick” a number that is reasonable. The Appellant hypothesized that perhaps the number would be 50% of the cost incurred by the Appellant to complete the original work or perhaps the combined base fees of the OPA and ZBA applications. There was no evidence put before the Tribunal to justify a conclusion that the base OPA and ZBA fees would be reasonable or that 50% of the initial application fees paid by the Appellant would be reasonable. The Tribunal was however persuaded by the Town’s evidence that the fees charged were in fact reasonable. The Town, through its witnesses, detailed the work that is involved in reviewing applications and that the work is often undertaken multiple times through various submissions with no additional fees being charged.
42The Tribunal was not proffered any evidence demonstrating that the Town’s anticipated costs included a profit. The Study process clearly demonstrated that the costs involved in the Town’s review of applications included a large amount of review, analysis and public engagement. There was no evidence of profit. Further, there is no mechanism in the Act allowing for refunds resulting from the variety of scenarios put forward by the Appellant. The key is that municipalities base fees on anticipated costs and the Tribunal finds that this is exactly what the Town has done.
43Mr. Stephen’s comparative analysis table assisted in demonstrating that the fees charged by the Town to process applications are not significantly different from other comparable municipalities. The fact that Watson conducted the studies in all but one of the municipalities included in the table does not make it unreliable for the purpose that it was presented, being a comparison for context and a further demonstration that the Town’s fees are reasonable.
44The Tribunal was not presented with sufficient evidence or submissions as to why the OPA and ZBA application fees were unreasonable. The Tribunal was presented with voluminous evidence connecting the fees imposed with the anticipated processing costs incurred by the Town. The Watson Study showed the work that went into establishing the anticipated cost to the Town to assist in setting the tariffs in the 2024 fee by-law. Whether the fee charged to the Appellant is the actual cost that the Town will incur to process the OPA and ZBA applications is not determinative nor required by the Act. The Tribunal finds that the fees charged to the Appellant were reasonably connected to the anticipated processing costs of the Town and are reasonable.
ORDER
45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal dismissed.
“C. Hardy”
C. HARDY
VICE-CHAIR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.