OLT 2025

The parties requested on consent to amend some of the procedural timelines contained in the Procedural Order issued on May 5, 2025.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the amendment of dates for submitting revised plans, exchanging witness lists, holding the expert's meeting, and exchanging agreed statements of facts and witness statements.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as a site plan application and a heritage alteration permit, to permit a 28-storey mixed-use building in the Church Street Village Character Area (CSVCA).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed tall building form was incompatible with the planned mid-rise context of the CSVCA under the North Downtown Yonge Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP 382).

The Tribunal held that the proposal failed to conform to angular plane policies, would cast unacceptable new net shadows on Barbara Hall Park, and did not represent good planning or urban design despite its location in a Major Transit Station Area.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Heritage Heights Secondary Plan.

The parties reached an uncontested written settlement concerning the Special Policy Area 1 Lands, proposing site-specific modifications to allow for a high-density, mixed-use community.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeal was granted in part, and the modified Secondary Plan was approved, save for one deferred area.

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

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, consolidating some issues, and scheduled a two-day video hearing for January 2026.

The parties were also encouraged to continue settlement discussions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building and a 4-storey residential building.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct technical errors in a previous decision dated August 12, 2025.

The corrections updated the GoTo Meeting link, access code, and audio-only telephone line for an upcoming hearing.

The claimant brought a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the expropriation of lands in Toronto.

The parties reached a full and final settlement and consented to the dismissal of the claims.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the claims dismissed on a without costs basis.

The appellant brought a motion for disclosure of the City's hydraulic water and wastewater models, as well as data related to airport noise contours, in the context of an appeal concerning an urban boundary expansion.

The City consented to releasing the water model but opposed releasing the wastewater model and the airport data, arguing the wastewater model was inaccurate and the airport data was not in its possession.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of both models, finding them relevant and necessary since the City intended to rely on them to some extent.

The Tribunal also ordered the City to disclose the airport data if and when it becomes available to the City, failing which neither party may rely on it at the merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Richmond Hill Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application to permit a rear addition and second storey to an existing single detached dwelling.

The City did not take a position on the appeal.

Relying on the City Planning Staff Report, which supported the application, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 32-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal previously allowed the appeals in part, withholding its final order until five pre-conditions were satisfied.

The City confirmed the pre-conditions were met, and the Tribunal issued its final order amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit a mobile home on rural lands.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal based on uncontested planning evidence.

The Tribunal ordered a site-specific amendment to the zoning by-law to permit a minimum dwelling floor area of 40 square metres for the subject property.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Hamilton's refusal to approve zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications for a 17-lot residential subdivision.

The Tribunal confirmed proper notice was given and noted no requests for party or participant status.

The parties agreed that a second Case Management Conference was required to finalize the issues list and draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled the second conference and directed the parties to submit the final draft Procedural Order in advance.

The Tribunal heard a settlement motion in writing regarding appeals of the new Town of Collingwood Official Plan.

The settlement pertained specifically to the High Street Appeals filed by three numbered companies.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence and the minutes of settlement between the appellants, the Town of Collingwood, and the County of Simcoe, the Tribunal found that the proposed modifications to the Official Plan were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the Official Plan schedules were modified accordingly.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a proposed amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan and an appeal of a development permit refusal, the Tribunal granted Party status to a community protection corporation and Participant status to three individuals.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to finalize the issues list and hearing dates.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to facilitate a 30-unit single-detached residential development.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, York Region Official Plan, and Town of Aurora Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit both a home-based business and an accessory apartment in the main dwelling.

The Town did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the requested variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that sufficient parking was available and the proposal maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The Township of King brought a motion seeking a determination that it had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Planning Act to pass By-law 12, which amended its zoning by-law to require applicants to demonstrate no adverse ecological impacts on the Oak Ridges Moraine before certain uses were permitted.

The Appellant argued this amounted to illegal conditional zoning and an attempt to circumvent Bill 23's removal of site plan control for small residential developments.

The Tribunal found that By-law 12's reliance on an extra-statutory conformity review process to crystalize use permissions constituted illegal conditional zoning and an unauthorized attempt to reinstate site plan control.

The Tribunal concluded the Township did not have the authority to pass the by-law.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Director's Order relating to sewage works, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled merit hearing to allow time for the Director to consider an amended Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Director opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal directed that the adjournment request be heard via a written motion and approved a revised Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend the procedural timelines contained in a previous Procedural Order.

The underlying matter involves appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the conversion of an existing commercial building into 15 residential townhouse dwelling units.

The applicant appealed the Township of Tay Valley's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the demolition of a cottage and construction of a year-round dwelling.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

A two-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled for November 2025.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Town proposed a revised hearing plan extending into 2027, which the Tribunal rejected due to its mandate for timely proceedings.

Instead, the Tribunal added ten hearing days in May 2026 and directed parties to advise if more time is needed for site-specific appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an unopposed request by one appellant to adjourn its appeals sine die to allow for seasonal fieldwork and testing.