OLT 2025

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the instruments in principle and withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of technical preconditions.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural timelines for an upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal hearing regarding a proposed 309-unit residential development in Hamilton.

The Tribunal granted the request and issued an amended procedural order extending the deadlines for exchanging witness statements, visual evidence, and the draft hearing plan.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision within the statutory timeframe regarding an application to amend the Official Plan to permit a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that City Council instructions were pending.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a City of Ottawa by-law designating a property as having cultural heritage value.

The parties disputed the inclusion of certain issues in the Issues List for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal determined that the appellant's proposed issues relating to future development and official plan conformity were outside the scope of the Ontario Heritage Act and excluded them from the Issues List.

A Procedural Order was approved and a two-day video hearing was scheduled.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 52-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the amending instruments and approval of a rental housing demolition application.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural timelines contained in the Procedural Order issued on February 19, 2025, regarding a determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the amended dates for discoveries, motions, and expert reports.

The Tribunal issued an order amending the procedural timelines established in a previous order following a Case Management Conference.

On consent of the parties, the deadlines for the municipality to provide an updated Issues List and for the parties to provide an updated procedural order and issues list were extended to September 11, 2025.

A case management conference was held for five appeals relating to an expropriation by the Ministry of Transportation in the Community of Tempo, London, Ontario.

The Tribunal ordered that the five files be heard together in accordance with Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A ten-day video hearing was scheduled for April 2026, and a procedural order was issued to govern the pre-hearing requirements, including mediation, discovery, and the exchange of expert reports.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Bovaird West Holdings Inc. against the City of Brampton's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties disputed whether certain issues proposed by CN, relating to the interpretation and relevance of specific provincial and municipal planning policies, should be included on the Issues List.

The Tribunal ruled that the proposed issues pertain to land use planning policies within its purview and allowed them to be included, noting that their relevance would be appropriately adjudicated at the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted a request to adjourn the previously scheduled nine-day hearing, rescheduling it as a five-day hearing in July 2025, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton'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 five-building industrial subdivision.

The proposal included relocating and expanding an existing wetland to create a natural heritage compensation area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and approved the Draft Plan of Subdivision in principle on an interim basis pending finalization of conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a City of Toronto by-law designating the Kensington Market Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal granted a request to substitute HSRE-Parallax 1, LP as an appellant in place of BRL Realty Limited due to a transfer of land ownership.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for June 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a City of Richmond Hill by-law designating a property as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The parties reported that productive settlement discussions were underway.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to either consider a proposed settlement or set hearing dates and finalize a Procedural Order.

The Township of King and the Regional Municipality of York brought a motion for directions arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Development Charges Act because the underlying development charge had not been paid prior to the complaint being filed.

The moving parties asserted that the statutory scheme requires a 'payment first' approach.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the plain language of section 20 of the Act does not require payment of a development charge as a precondition to bringing a complaint.

The appeal was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The appellants requested an amendment to the procedural order to extend the dates for exchanging witness statements and reply witness statements.

The City of Richmond Hill consented to the request.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and amended the procedural order accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on March 16, 2026.

The hearing concerns an appeal by the applicant regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use building with 105 residential units.

The Township of Adjala-Tosorontio brought a motion to adjourn a minor variance merit hearing after its former counsel declared a conflict of interest shortly before the hearing.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing it was a delay tactic.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the Township acted promptly to retain new counsel upon learning of the conflict and that a brief adjournment was necessary to ensure procedural fairness and allow the Township to properly present its case.

The appellant appealed the passage of a municipal by-law establishing a new 7-ward boundary configuration, arguing that the option was not presented during public consultations and was therefore unfair.

The respondent municipality presented expert evidence that the 7-ward option emerged organically from public feedback and met the guiding principles for effective representation.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence, finding no grounds to overturn the municipal council's decision, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order to invalidate and repeal a municipal by-law designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued the municipality failed to follow statutory procedures when issuing the Notice of Intention to Designate.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 29(15) of the Ontario Heritage Act and sections 8 and 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to repeal a by-law on a motion without first holding a hearing on the merits of the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Starbank Developments 1416 Corp. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 43-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 18 individuals and entities on consent.

The Tribunal also set deadlines for the exchange of the Issues List and Draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision regarding a Site Plan Application for an 11-unit townhouse development.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement resolving all outstanding issues.

The Tribunal denied late requests for party and participant status from area residents to avoid prejudice to the proceedings.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence and the settlement, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the revised Site Plan was approved subject to agreed-upon conditions.