OLT 2025

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential property into two lots.

The proposed lots required relief for minimum lot width and area.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the proposal represented compatible residential infill that conformed to the Official Plan and was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The appeals were allowed, the variances authorized, and provisional consent granted.

The claimant brought a proceeding under section 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the determination of compensation related to the construction of the Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension.

The parties advised the Ontario Land Tribunal that they wished to dismiss the proceeding on consent without costs.

The Tribunal ordered the proceeding dismissed on a without costs basis.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Signature Hill Corporation for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a 40-storey residential building in Toronto.

On consent, 280 Viewmount Limited Partnership was granted Party status.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-week merit hearing for April 2026 and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

Several property owners brought motions seeking party status and orders pursuant to subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act to deem Zoning By-law No. 608-2024 in force for their respective properties.

The by-law, along with Official Plan Amendment No. 727, was adopted by the City of Toronto to permit gentle residential intensification along major streets but was appealed city-wide by 2856973 Ontario Inc. Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that scoping the appeals to exclude the moving parties' lands would not create conformity issues and would facilitate timely redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted the motions, deemed the by-law in force for the specified properties, and permitted the moving parties to withdraw from the proceedings.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the municipality's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law amendment for a mixed-use residential development.

Following a public hearing, the Tribunal directed the submission of a draft Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal ordered that the submitted Procedural Order is in full force and effect to govern the upcoming hearing.

The moving party brought a motion seeking an order that the unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment 778 relating to its property at 428 and 430 Royal York Road are in full force and effect.

The City of Toronto and the appellants to OPA 778 did not object to the motion.

The Tribunal found that because the appeals did not apply to the subject property, the relevant policies and overlays came into force by operation of s. 17(27) of the Planning Act on the day after the appeal period expired.

The Tribunal issued an order confirming the policies are in effect and that the order does not prejudice the remaining appeals.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential subdivision.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert land use planning evidence provided by affidavit, the Tribunal approved the settled Zoning By-law Amendment, redlined Plan of Subdivision, and Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, finding they constitute good planning and are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The draft plan and conditions were returned to Grey County for final approval.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference, endorsed a draft Procedural Order with a finalized Issues List, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence on May 25, 2026.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 31-storey mixed-use building at 444-466 Eglinton Avenue West.

The site is currently designated for 8-storey mid-rise buildings.

The Tribunal found that while the proposal was well-designed and transit-supportive, a 31-storey building failed to fit the planned context and height transition of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in principle but issued an interim order keeping the file open for six months to allow the parties to negotiate a resolution, particularly in light of the City's recently adopted Official Plan Amendment 778.

Metrolinx brought a motion to have three separate expropriation compensation claims heard together or consecutively at the same hearing event.

The claims related to properties expropriated for the Ontario Line transit project.

The claimants opposed the motion, arguing that their claims involved different approaches to highest and best use, different experts, and were at different stages of procedural readiness.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while there were some common facts, the differences in the claims, the risk of prejudice from delaying the most advanced proceeding, and the lack of readiness of the other files outweighed the efficiency benefits sought by Metrolinx.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a revised development of 104 stacked back-to-back townhouses, reduced from the originally proposed 15-storey building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The moving parties brought a motion to dismiss appeals of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan filed by the responding parties.

The moving parties argued the notices of appeal failed to provide the required explanations of how the Official Plan was inconsistent with provincial policy or failed to conform to the District Official Plan, and failed to disclose apparent land use planning grounds.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the alleged lack of conformity and inconsistency were not clearly identified or explained in the original notices of appeal as required by the Planning Act.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals without a hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a consent and zoning by-law amendment application to create a new rural residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a revised wetland buffer and a reduced minimum distance separation setback from a nearby barn.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the instruments approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application to permit a 19-storey mixed-use building.

Following an earlier interim decision allowing the appeal in part, the Tribunal issued its final order approving the zoning by-law amendment after being advised that all pre-requisite conditions had been satisfied.

The site plan appeal remains held in abeyance.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings for an upcoming hearing.

The underlying appeal concerns the refusal of a proposed plan of subdivision that would permit the conversion of 60 existing townhouses to condominium tenure in the City of North Bay.

The hearing is scheduled for three days commencing September 2, 2025.

The claimants commenced a proceeding under section 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the determination of compensation related to an expropriation for the Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension.

The parties subsequently advised the Ontario Land Tribunal that they wished to dismiss the proceeding on consent without costs.

The Tribunal ordered the proceeding dismissed on a without costs basis.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit residential and mixed-use developments with multiple towers.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan amendment and approving the Zoning By-law amendment in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of certain conditions.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for air and noise to a meat processing facility.

The Applicant argued that the facility's noise emissions exceeded guidelines and that the eight-year timeline for implementing noise mitigation measures was unreasonable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had standing to seek leave to appeal based on his past involvement with an adjacent residential subdivision.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Applicant failed to satisfy the two-part test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Director's decision was reasonable, and the Applicant provided no compelling evidence that the decision could result in significant harm to the environment.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for a rear deck.

The appellants failed to attend the case management conference, which was converted to a hearing on the merits.

The hearing officer reviewed the application and found the deck consistent with natural heritage policies and without negative visual impacts.

Following the hearing, the appellants formally withdrew their appeals.

The hearing officer confirmed the Commission's decision to issue the permit.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a case management conference regarding appeals of a proposed zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision in the Town of Mono.

The order schedules a 17-day virtual merits hearing to commence on September 21, 2026, and sets out the procedural dates and issues list for the hearing.