OLT 2025

The applicant opposed the inclusion of certain Provincial Planning Statement and Vaughan Official Plan policies in the Issues List for a Phase 2 Hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of policies related to child-care facilities, accessibility, interface compatibility, multi-modal transportation systems, and additional studies, finding they could be relevant to the interface design.

However, the Tribunal disallowed a policy regarding transitions in scale, noting that matters of transition regarding podium and tower heights were already endorsed in the Phase 1 decision and would not be re-litigated.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to increase maximum driveway width for two proposed additional residential units.

Following a section 23 review, the matter was scheduled for a case management conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a de novo oral re-hearing for January 28, 2026, allowing the appellant to submit new evidence.

The applicants appealed the refusal of a minor variance by the Township of King Committee of Adjustment.

The variance sought to permit a reduced side yard setback of 1.06 metres for an as-built pool cabana, where 3.6 metres is required.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, as it was desirable, minor in nature, and maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to a condition.

The parties requested on consent to amend the hearing date and procedural timelines for an expropriation compensation claim.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, rescheduling the seven-day hearing to commence on November 2, 2026, and issued an updated Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing steps.

The appellant appealed the Hamilton Conservation Authority's failure to make a decision regarding a conservation permit application.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that the Niagara Escarpment Commission had issued a required development permit and the Conservation Authority had agreed to issue the conservation permit.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow time for the permit to be issued and conditions reviewed, and released the previously scheduled merit hearing dates.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to have five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals (Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc., Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc., and Whitechurch Landowners Group Inc.) heard together.

The parties consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard at the commencement of the previously scheduled Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment and a development permit to convert a former convent into a private school.

A party requested a phased hearing to adjudicate the plan amendment before the development permit.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the issues and expert evidence were intricately linked, and ordered a single merit hearing.

A procedural order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision to permit three residential apartment towers.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part, approving the amendment in principle subject to conditions including the execution of agreements securing rental housing replacement.

The subdivision appeal was adjourned sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming hearing regarding appeals by PEM (Weston) Limited Partnership and PEM (Weston) GP Inc. against the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to permit the development of two mixed-use residential and commercial buildings and one residential building.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of evidence, witness statements, and the hearing dates, and includes the finalized issues list.

The Tribunal held a case management conference to schedule a hearing of necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding the expropriation of a hotel property for community improvement and heritage rehabilitation.

After considering written submissions from the parties, the Tribunal ordered the hearing to proceed by videoconference over two days and set deadlines for the delivery of joint document books.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit three mixed-use residential towers.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to a 9-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 1, 2026.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding a proposed amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the refusal of a development permit for a private school gymnasium, a party requested a phased hearing.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the issues and expert evidence were intricately linked and a single merit hearing would be more efficient.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to decide on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a high-rise redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted party status to a residents' group and participant status to ten individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue discussions and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant withdrew their appeal of the City of Waterloo's Zoning By-law No. 2019-033.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that the remaining site-specific provisions of the By-law subject to the appeal are in full force and effect, deemed to have come into force on the day the By-law was passed.

The parties requested an amendment to the procedural order governing the schedule for a compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request on consent and issued an amended procedural order setting out the timetable for pleadings, discoveries, mediation, and the hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of London's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a four-storey, 10-unit apartment building on a property adjacent to an environmentally significant area.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included rezoning a portion of the property as open space to act as a buffer, transferring it to the City, and implementing an environmental management plan.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, allowing the appeal in part to approve the amended by-law.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence by video on June 22, 2026, to allow time for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on planning applications.

The parties had previously settled most issues, leaving only the zoning by-law amendment for the Northeast Medium Density Block unresolved.

Due to a lack of response from the municipality following mediation, the applicant requested a merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the first scheduled merit hearing.

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law that revised the ward boundaries of Loyalist Township to maintain Amherst Island as a separate ward, resulting in a 77% deviation from average ward population parity.

The Tribunal found that the ward boundary review process was fair and that Amherst Island is a distinct community of interest due to its geography and reliance on a ferry.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the 77% deviation from voter parity was unreasonable and not justified by the community of interest principle, as it undermined the overarching principle of effective representation.

The appeal was allowed and the by-law was repealed.