OLT 2025

The appellant appealed the Township of King Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a two-storey backyard accessory structure.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement modifying the requested building height variance and adding conditions.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

This was a status hearing regarding multiple appeals against the Region of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 119 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal deferred a party status request from Canadian National Railway Company to the next Case Management Conference to allow parties time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 16, 2025.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Sifton Properties Limited against the City of Brantford for failing to make decisions on planning applications within the prescribed timeframes.

The parties had previously settled most issues, leaving only the zoning designation for the Northeast Medium Density Block in dispute.

The parties agreed to enter into Tribunal-led mediation for the remaining issue.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for December 5, 2025, to update the Tribunal on the mediation's status or to proceed as a settlement hearing if an agreement is reached.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Plan of Subdivision to permit a 37-unit residential farm co-operative.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order setting a 10-day video hearing to commence on July 7, 2025, and established the procedural dates for the exchange of witness statements, expert meetings, and other pre-hearing requirements.

The County of Middlesex appealed the approval of a consent to sever application by the Committee of Adjustment for the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc.

The application sought to sever approximately one acre of farmland from a 49-acre parcel.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference, confirmed the parties' awareness of mediation, and scheduled a hearing for October 1, 2025.

The applicants appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision to permit an industrial warehouse development.

Following a case management conference, the Tribunal issued a procedural order.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered an amendment to the procedural timelines, extending the date for exchanging witness statements and expert witness statements to June 13, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use development comprising three towers.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council.

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

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order following a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Georgian Bay and District of Muskoka Development Charges By-laws.

The order establishes the procedural rules, key dates, and issues list for a 5-day video hearing scheduled to commence on June 22, 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of Guelph's dismissal of a complaint regarding the calculation of development charges for a proposed three-building development.

The appellant argued that an overpayment from revised plans for the first two buildings should be applied to the third building based on an alleged pre-payment agreement and equitable principles, including interest.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence of a pre-payment agreement and holding that it lacked jurisdiction to apply equitable remedies to site-specific development charge determinations under the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal also agreed with the City that no interest was owed for the period when the appellant voluntarily revised its plans.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural timelines contained in the Procedural Order issued on December 13, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and amended the dates for the meeting of expert witnesses, filing of the agreed statement of facts, and exchange of expert and responding witness statements.

In all other respects, the Procedural Order remains the same.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan amendment, Zoning By-law amendment, and site plan approval to permit a 25-storey mixed-use building.

Following a previous decision allowing the appeals in part, the Tribunal was advised that the conditions for approval had been satisfied.

The Tribunal ordered the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amended accordingly, while the site plan appeal remains adjourned sine die.

Following an interim decision that allowed the appeals in part and approved the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments in principle, the Tribunal was advised by the municipality that all conditions had been satisfied.

The Tribunal issued its final order amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an 11-storey, 133-unit residential building.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan control to permit a mixed-use development with two residential towers.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal held an uncontested written hearing.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the official plan and zoning by-law appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until several pre-requisite conditions, including finalization of the instruments and securing affordable housing, are met.

The site plan appeal was adjourned sine die.

The appellants appealed the Town of Carleton Place's extension of an interim control by-law.

The parties reached a settlement to remove the appellants' property from the application of the extended by-law.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence that the amendment was consistent with provincial policy and conformed to the official plan, the Tribunal approved the settlement and allowed the appeal in part.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted driveway width from 6.71 metres to 8.1 metres.

The variance was sought to accommodate parking for a proposed three-unit dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the widened driveway would not result in unacceptable adverse impacts on the streetscape, drainage, or pedestrian safety, provided it was tapered to avoid a wider curb cut.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions, including the submission of a tree evaluation report.

During a hearing on the merits of an appeal concerning a proposed redevelopment, the moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that two expert witnesses retained by the respondents committed perjury and colluded via email.

The moving party argued the experts' evidence was tainted and should be excluded.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to make criminal findings of perjury, but had authority to address improper conduct.

The Tribunal concluded that the email exchange did not breach Rule 7.5 of the Tribunal Rules, did not impair the experts' independence or impartiality, and did not prejudice the moving party.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the experts' evidence remained on the record.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the expansion of an existing sand and gravel pit.

Following a case management conference and the issuance of a procedural order, the parties submitted a consent request to amend certain procedural timelines.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the dates for exchanging witness statements, filing the statement of agreed facts and issues, and exchanging reply witness statements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing for a determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing May 4, 2026.

The order sets out the schedule for pleadings, discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert reports.

The appellants appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application.

The application sought to permit a personal service shop as a home occupation in a semi-detached dwelling with zero parking spaces.

At the start of the merit hearing, the appellants withdrew their appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Committee of Adjustment's decision as final.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 777 (Sheppard East Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted Added Party status to the Toronto Lands Corporation, finding it is a public body that meets the statutory requirements under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also granted Participant status to the Sheppard Avenue East Community Group on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consider mediation and set a schedule for finalizing the Issues List ahead of the next Case Management Conference.