OLT 2025

The appellants requested a Telephone Conference Call to provide a status update on the conditions of an interim order issued by the Tribunal regarding a proposed high-rise residential development.

The parties confirmed that most conditions had been satisfied, with only the peer review of the Vibration Impact Study remaining.

The Tribunal granted a 60-day extension to July 31, 2025, to allow the parties to finalize the remaining condition before requesting the issuance of the final order.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 6-storey residential apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with provincial policies and the municipal Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and noted the Official Plan Amendment appeal was withdrawn as it was no longer required.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. against the Town of Collingwood's refusal of applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 69-unit residential development.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties submitted a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the updated Procedural Order and scheduled a 30-day merits hearing to commence in January 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 11410598 Canada Inc. concerning the Municipality of Chatham-Kent's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a nine-storey residential apartment building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to four individuals, approved the draft procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a five-day merit hearing for November 2025.

The appellant appealed conditions imposed by the Town of Fort Erie on a draft plan of subdivision for a townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to remove the condition requiring a Traffic Impact Study and the appellant withdrew its appeals against the remaining conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised conditions reasonable and approved the draft plan subject to the modified conditions.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Class III Development Permit Application to construct six street-facing townhouses.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement that addressed the Town Committee's compatibility concerns by increasing the exterior side yard setback and requiring tree planting.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, conformed to the applicable official plans and by-laws, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to issue the permit subject to the agreed conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for appeals brought by the applicant due to the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to facilitate the development of six townhouse blocks.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a two-day merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit additional height and density for a high-rise, mixed-use development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal considered an uncontested written settlement reached by the parties.

Relying on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including the execution of an agreement securing additional affordable rental housing units.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to facilitate a mixed-use high-rise development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for two towers of 36 and 41 storeys.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final orders withheld pending the submission of final instruments and a Transportation Demand Management agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a two-tower mixed-use development.

Following a settlement hearing in 2022, the Tribunal approved the development in principle.

Having been advised that the conditions set out in a previous order were fulfilled, the Tribunal issued its final order approving the zoning by-law amendment, which includes provisions for conveying conservation lands to the City.

The applicants appealed the Township's non-decision regarding a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to facilitate a 40-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to two adjacent property owners.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the non-decision of its Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit a residential development of 269 dwelling units.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a full settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, the Zoning By-law was amended, and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 21-storey residential tower.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider consolidation of appeals and finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City of Kitchener Committee of Adjustment's decision denying minor variances for a front yard setback to facilitate a balcony and an interior side yard setback for an unobstructed walkway to an additional dwelling unit.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances meet the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represent good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 770, which redesignates certain properties and extends a park area.

A Telephone Conference Call was held to address scheduling matters.

On consent, the parties requested an adjournment of the merit hearing due to a scheduling conflict.

The City also requested a motion for direction regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the redesignation of one of the properties.

The Tribunal adjourned the merit hearing, set dates for the motion for direction to proceed in writing, and established a deadline for the procedural order.

This was a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Carleton Place's Official Plan Amendment No. 8.

The Tribunal noted that Pegasus Development Corporation failed to submit a party status request form and was therefore not a party to the appeals.

The Tribunal also determined that Zoning By-law No. 32-2021 was not before it, as it was never appealed, and excluded it from the Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing and approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Town of Wasaga Beach brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Achille Developments Ltd. concerning applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Town argued the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under section 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act because the Town Council passed a resolution categorically refusing to assume any public works or enter into development agreements for the proposed subdivision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that a municipal resolution refusing to provide servicing does not automatically eliminate the reasonable prospect of success of an appeal on land use planning grounds, and the appellant is entitled to a full hearing on the merits.

The City of Hamilton appealed a minor variance application concerning a property in Binbrook.

Prior to the hearing, the applicants advised the Ontario Land Tribunal that they did not wish to proceed with the application and would not present any evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered that the amendments to the minor variance application are not authorized.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to grant a conditional development permit for an on-farm diversified use (an event venue) on agricultural lands.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted agreed-upon terms and conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Hearing Officer found the proposed use, subject to the agreed conditions, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformed to the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the permit was confirmed with the additional conditions.

The appellant appealed Oxford County By-law No. 6639-2024 under the Development Charges Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested to consolidate this appeal with a newly filed appeal concerning By-law No. 6709-2025, which amends the first by-law.

The Tribunal granted the consolidation and directed the parties to provide a written update by December 12, 2025, regarding their progress on an issues list, procedural order, and potential mediation.