OLT 2025

The Appellant appealed the County of Renfrew's failure to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for 26 waterfront residential lots.

The primary issue was the adequacy and required upgrade standards for a private access road (Pasco Road) located on an unopened road allowance shared by two adjacent townships.

The Tribunal found that because the two townships could not agree on the standard to which the access road should be upgraded, the application failed to satisfy section 51(24)(e) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the proposed subdivision was premature and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment denying a minor variance to increase the gross floor area of a secondary dwelling unit from 89 sq m to 124 sq m to facilitate the conversion of an attic into four additional bedrooms.

The Tribunal found that while the variance met the intent of the Official Plan, it failed the other three tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, it did not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law regarding height restrictions for secondary dwelling units, was not minor in nature when considered in the context of existing permissions, and was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the conditions of approval for a consent to sever a property to develop a new detached dwelling.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties resolved their issues and requested to convert the hearing into a Case Management Conference to schedule a written hearing.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner concerned about slope stability and scheduled a written hearing for October 2, 2025.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding the satisfaction of conditions for the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The parties confirmed that two of the three conditions had been met, but the appellant had not provided a satisfactory Contingency Odour Management Plan.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing on the merits to address the outstanding condition and directed the parties to agree on exchange dates for witness materials.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the rear yard setback and increase maximum lot coverage to legalize an existing deck.

The Tribunal evaluated the application against the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

While finding the variance met the intent of the Official Plan, was desirable, and was minor in nature, the Tribunal concluded it did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal found the deck's size and encroachment undermined the custom zoning standards established for the subdivision.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellants appealed the refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an undersized agricultural lot.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties discussed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List as supplied by the responding municipalities, rejecting the appellants' request to add explanatory wording to the municipalities' issues.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to convert a detached garage into an additional dwelling unit.

The application sought to reduce the interior side yard setback from 1.2 metres to 0.61 metres.

The Tribunal found that while the application maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and was desirable, it failed to maintain the general intent of the Zoning By-law and was not minor in nature due to concerns about the maintenance of the structure along the lot line.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application to sever an existing lot into three additional lots.

The parties agreed to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which the Tribunal approved.

A one-day video hearing was scheduled for November 24, 2025.

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

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant requested that hearing dates be scheduled immediately, while the Township requested a second CMC to allow time to secure a planning witness.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for four weeks later to balance the applicant's desire to proceed with the Township's need to identify its witness and finalize the issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Camping in Ontario against the Township of Selwyn's Development Charges By-laws.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the appeals and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the four-day merit hearing scheduled for November 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the conduct of a proceeding for the determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The order sets out the timetable for pleadings, discoveries, witness statements, and the hearing plan for a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence in October 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of London's proposed Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendment which sought to modify the boundary of the Meadowlily Woods Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) to include a portion of the appellant's lands.

The appellant argued the boundary expansion was premature and not supported by ecological evidence, as the lands were dominated by invasive species and lacked significant natural features.

The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, finding that the City's proposed ESA boundary was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the London Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the appellant's proposed ESA boundary line.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a final order approving a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 8 and 14-storey mixed-use building in Toronto.

Following a previous decision that allowed the appeal in part, the Tribunal was satisfied that the pre-requisite conditions were met, save for a community benefits charge agreement which the parties agreed to address prior to building permit issuance.

The Tribunal amended City of Toronto By-law 569-2013 accordingly.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the expansion of an existing sand and gravel pit.

The parties reached a settlement involving a revised Zoning By-law Amendment that limits the pit extension to a load and haul operation.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment has regard to matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised by-law was approved.

The claimants sought compensation under the Expropriations Act for injurious affection allegedly caused by the respondent municipality during sewer repairs.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement in principle regarding compensation, leaving only the issue of costs to be determined.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal established deadlines for the execution of the Minutes of Settlement and for the exchange of positions and supporting documentation regarding costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Primont Homes against the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian National Railway Company on consent.

A request for party status by a local resident was denied due to non-attendance, but participant status was granted instead.

Participant status was also granted to approximately 60 other requestors.

A preliminary procedural order was approved, and a four-week hearing on the merits was scheduled for June 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the required procedures leading up to and including a 7-day video hearing scheduled to commence on December 1, 2025, regarding a claim for determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's refusal of minor variances required to legalize the conversion of an existing medical office to a detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the City's denial of an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a heritage demolition permit for a property in a heritage conservation district.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner on consent.

The Tribunal also granted the parties' joint request to consolidate the three appeals, finding that they involve the same property, proposed development, and common heritage issues.

Future dates for a subsequent Case Management Conference and a merit hearing were scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to enact an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 45-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement proposal, which included the partial retention and adaptive reuse of a heritage building on the site.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with provincial policy and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until certain conditions, including a heritage easement agreement and functional servicing report, were satisfied.