OLT 2025

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment, official plan amendment, and draft plan of subdivision for a proposed residential development in Woodstock.

The statutory parties advised that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal considered requests for Party and Participant status.

John Bell's request for Party status was denied as there were no remaining issues to shelter under given the settlement, and his participation as a Party would cause prejudice through increased hearing length and cost; he was granted Participant status instead.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to 85 other requestors, ordered the matters to be heard together, and scheduled a settlement hearing.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying certain minor variances required to facilitate the severance of a lot and the construction of a new dwelling and carriage house in a Heritage Conservation District.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving revised building elevations and driveway configurations.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 106 (OPA 106), which revised permitted building heights in the Downtown Secondary Plan area.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties jointly requested an order scoping the appeal to a specific item as it relates to the appellant's lands and holding the appeal in abeyance pending a decision on site-specific development applications.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the scoping order represented good planning and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Tribunal granted the requested relief, confirming that the unappealed portions of OPA 106 came into effect by operation of the Planning Act.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development permit approval for a lot severance, the Hearing Officer directed the appellants to prepare an Issues List and a draft Procedural Order.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to further organize the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of single detached dwellings on a vacant block within an existing subdivision.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented a revised draft zoning by-law amendment that included a holding provision regarding water and sewer availability.

The Tribunal found that the proposed amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning by facilitating gentle intensification within a settlement area.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the revised zoning by-law amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend the procedural timelines and reschedule the merit hearing for appeals concerning a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval for a 12-storey mixed-use building in Toronto.

The 6-day merit hearing was rescheduled to commence on November 19, 2025.

The Tribunal previously withheld its Final Order regarding appeals for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit high-rise residential developments on Denarda Street, pending receipt of the final planning instruments.

The parties having filed the required instruments in an agreed form, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments to the City of Toronto Official Plan and Zoning By-law 569-2013.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision to permit residential development.

Following a written settlement hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on consent of all parties.

The Tribunal ordered the amendment of the zoning by-law to permit townhouse dwellings on the subject property.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 390-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential condominium.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal previously allowed the appeal in part and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions.

Having been advised that the conditions were met, the Tribunal issued the final order amending the zoning by-law to permit an 8-storey residential condominium.

The Claimant sought leave to amend its Notice of Arbitration to add claims for injurious affection and disturbance damages arising from the partial expropriation of its lands by the Respondent school board.

The Respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the injurious affection claim was statute-barred and lacked sufficient particulars.

The Tribunal found the claim was not statute-barred, as the Claimant sought the amendment within one month of discovering the alleged damage via an expert appraisal report.

However, the Tribunal agreed that the proposed amendments lacked sufficient particulars regarding quantum and factual basis.

The Tribunal directed the Claimant to provide further amendments detailing the particulars before leave would be granted.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building.

Following a settlement hearing and an interim order allowing the appeals in part, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a final order approving the finalized draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The Tribunal previously allowed the appellant's appeals in part regarding an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan for a 29-storey apartment building, but withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of certain conditions.

Having been advised that the conditions for the release of the final order on the Official Plan Amendment were satisfied, the Tribunal issued its final order approving the Official Plan Amendment.

The amendment permits an increase in maximum building height to 40 storeys and a maximum floor space index of 12.0.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding appeals by Rowhedge Construction Ltd. against the Town of Oakville's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The amendments seek to permit the development of 40 stacked townhouse units.

The Tribunal scheduled a 9-day video hearing to commence on June 22, 2026, and established the procedural dates and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Regional Municipality of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against OPA 119 and ZBL 418.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Canadian National Railway Company, substituted Inaria Burlington Inc. for Burlington Healthcare Centre Inc., and scheduled a motion hearing to consider dismissing certain appeals and addressing potential settlements.

The Appellant brought a motion for discovery seeking disclosure of documents from the Director relating to a 2015 application for regulatory relief from water sampling requirements.

The Director had refused a similar application in 2024, which is the subject of the current appeal.

The Director opposed the motion, arguing the 2015 documents were not relevant.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the 2015 application related to the same property and similar relief, making the documents relevant to the current appeal.

The Director was ordered to disclose the documents, subject to any claims of privilege.

The applicant requested an amendment to the dates contained in the Procedural Order issued April 17, 2025, regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision refusal.

The request was made on consent of the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and amended the dates for the Statement of Agreed Facts, Planning Witness statements, and Visual evidence.

The appellants appealed the municipality's refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an additional residential unit within an existing accessory building on agricultural lands.

The municipality argued the proposal was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and failed to meet Minimum Distance Separation guidelines.

The Tribunal preferred the appellants' planning evidence, finding the applications had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the PPS 2024, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The Appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to increase the permitted lot coverage for accessory buildings from 10% to 11.5%, to allow an existing second dwelling to be converted into a storage building.

The Town and a neighbouring property owner opposed the application, arguing the Tribunal should impose regulations on an Additional Residential Unit (ARU) the Appellant planned to build in an existing garage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the ARU issues were irrelevant to the requested relief and that the minor increase in lot coverage constituted good planning.

The Tribunal also dismissed a motion for recusal based on alleged perception of bias during case management.

The Tribunal received a request on consent of the parties to amend the procedural timelines for an upcoming hearing regarding official plan, zoning by-law, and site plan amendments for a stacked townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the dates for the witness list, witness statements, and reply witness statements.