OLT 2025

Following a compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act, the claimant sought an order for costs of over $1.1 million.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the costs assessment pending its appeal of the underlying merit decision to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the assessment of costs is not automatically stayed and that proceeding expeditiously was fair and efficient.

The Tribunal reviewed the contested items in the bill of costs, making minor deductions for unrelated utility negotiations and previously settled discovery motions, but largely upheld the claimant's costs as reasonable and reasonably incurred.

The Tribunal awarded $1,067,308 for the interim bill of costs and $64,359 for costs incurred on the application itself, with interest running from the date of the merit decision.

Peterborough Action for Tiny Homes (PATH) appealed the City's refusal of a Temporary Use By-law application to permit 24 transitional housing sleeping cabins on a property adjacent to an existing heavy industrial facility.

The central issue was whether the cabins should be classified as 'dwellings' or 'noise sensitive institutional purpose buildings' under provincial noise guidelines (NPC-300) for the purpose of determining land use compatibility.

The Tribunal found the cabins constituted dwellings, requiring more stringent noise mitigation.

Because the proposal introduced a sensitive land use immediately adjacent to a Class II industrial facility without adequate mitigation mechanisms, the Tribunal held it was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the City Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the failure of the municipality to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 27-unit townhouse development.

Following a settlement hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Conditions of Site Plan Approval to facilitate the development.

The appellant appealed the passing of Zoning By-law No. 1260-2024, which enacted city-wide as-of-right zoning for mid-rise buildings on avenues.

On consent, the City brought a motion to scope the appeal geographically to the appellant's property at 2850 Kingston Road and for partial approval of the by-law.

The Tribunal granted the motion, scoping the appeal and deeming the unappealed portions of the by-law to have come into force on the day it was passed.

The applicant appealed the City of Niagara Falls' failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 10-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal approved the draft procedural order and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The parties were directed to finalize the issues list following a meeting of expert witnesses.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Town of Newmarket's passing of a by-law designating a property as being of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The parties agreed to consolidate and refine the issues list.

The Tribunal approved the finalized Issues List and Procedural Order, scheduled a two-day video hearing, and encouraged the parties to engage in settlement discussions.

The appellant sought an extension of a lapsing condition for a draft plan of subdivision approval originally set to expire on September 19, 2025.

The Town of Collingwood's Council ratified a recommendation to approve the extension for three years.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found the extension to be in the public interest and represent good planning, and ordered the draft plan approval extended to September 19, 2028, along with minor technical amendments to the conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for a mixed-use development within the statutory timeframe.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing to commence on September 14, 2026, and ordered the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

The City of Toronto requested, on consent of the appellant, to scope the appeal of Zoning By-law 849-2025 (regarding garden suites, laneway suites, and multiplexes) to a single property at 42 Donalda Crescent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, scoping the appeal to the specified property and deeming the by-law to have come into force and effect for the remainder of the City of Toronto as of the day it was passed.

The appeal was adjourned sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 1238576 Ontario Limited under section 34(11) of the Planning Act, following the Township of Centre Wellington's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to rezone open space to a residential zone to create a woodland corridor.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for May 2026 and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment, the Tribunal considered a request from an adjacent townhouse community to convert from Participant to Party status.

Finding that the community had a genuine interest and intended to call expert evidence, the Tribunal granted Party status.

The Tribunal also set dates for the submission of the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 14-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the conduct of a land compensation hearing under the Expropriations Act between the property owners, Thomas and Melissa Dolezel, and the expropriating authority, the Town of Penetanguishene.

The order sets out the schedule for pleadings, discovery, motions, and the exchange of witness lists and expert reports leading up to a five-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 8, 2026.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building and 63 townhouses.

The municipality argued the proposed height and density were incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood and lacked affordable housing content.

The Tribunal found the proposed development represented an efficient use of underutilized land, provided appropriate transition to the existing neighbourhood, and conformed to the applicable provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle subject to finalization of site-specific exceptions.

The claimant brought a motion to compel the respondent to produce a detailed Schedule 'B' to its Affidavit of Documents and sought costs.

After the respondent provided the requested schedule, the claimant withdrew the substantive request but maintained its claim for costs.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to award costs at this early stage, noting that costs in expropriation matters are better considered after a full hearing or settlement when the full sequence of events is available.

The Tribunal deferred the costs determination to the conclusion of the proceeding.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to and including the hearing of an appeal by the appellant against the municipality's Development Charge By-law No. 13-2025.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on March 16, 2026, for a duration of 10 days.

The appellant appealed the City of Windsor Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variance and consent applications intended to facilitate a technical severance.

The severance aimed to correct an existing dwelling's encroachment and adjust an irregular lot shape.

The City supported the applications at the Tribunal.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and the consent satisfied the statutory criteria.

The appeal was allowed and the applications were approved without conditions.

The parties submitted a request on consent to amend the procedural timelines contained in the Procedural Order for a hearing to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and issued an amended procedural order governing the steps leading up to the hearing.

The Claimant municipality sought land compensation from the Respondent transit authority regarding the expropriation of a permanent easement for a transit extension project.

Following a Case Management Conference and advice that full payment of costs had concluded, the Tribunal ordered the claims withdrawn on consent and any outstanding requests for costs abandoned.

The applicants appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval to permit a stacked townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised 28-unit proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit a rear addition containing two suites to an existing heritage dwelling.

The proposed variances were for building depth and rear yard setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, represented gentle intensification, and was designed to protect the heritage integrity of the main residence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's expert witnesses over the respondent's experts, noting that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.