OLT 2025

The appellant appealed the County's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a bulk water delivery business on agricultural lands.

At the hearing, the parties agreed to scope the appeal to only a reduction in the roadway setback to 21 metres, abandoning other requested provisions.

The Tribunal applied the Clergy Principle to assess the application under the 2012 Official Plan rather than the newly enacted 2023 Official Plan.

The Tribunal also determined it lacked jurisdiction to make a stand-alone finding of fact on whether the business constituted an Agriculture-Related Use.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the scoped amendment for the reduced setback.

The claimants brought a motion seeking post-judgment interest on their settled costs and an order that the respondent was not entitled to set off costs awarded to it by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The Tribunal found that because the parties had settled the costs without a Tribunal order, post-judgment interest under section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act did not accrue.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to vary or relieve the claimants from costs orders made by appellate courts.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit two mixed-use buildings of 12 and 14 storeys.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions, including rental housing demolition approval and infrastructure servicing agreements.

Metrolinx brought a motion for directions arising from its examination for discovery of a representative of Osmington (Union Station) Inc. in a land compensation proceeding under the Expropriation Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved the motion on agreed terms.

The Tribunal ordered the motion withdrawn on consent with no order as to costs, and the Vice-Chair remained seized of case management.

The City of Waterloo brought a motion to vacate the scheduled hearing dates for an expropriation compensation claim and adjourn the proceeding pending the determination of a related Superior Court civil action.

The civil action concerned a prior planning settlement and whether the claimants were obliged to convey a portion of the expropriated lands to the City.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that it has exclusive jurisdiction to determine compensation under the Expropriations Act and that the title issues raised in the civil action are irrelevant to the expropriation proceeding, as the City acquired full fee simple interest in the entire property through the expropriation.

The Tribunal concluded that the expropriation proceeding can proceed concurrently with the civil action.

The appellants objected to a municipal by-law designating their property as being of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented a proposed amending by-law to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontroverted expert heritage planning evidence, the Tribunal found the property met the prescribed criteria for designation, specifically for its Gothic Revival design and contextual value.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to amend the by-law's description of heritage attributes in accordance with the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use development with two 40-storey residential buildings.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached and requested additional time to finalize the materials.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and established procedural dates for the exchange of revised application materials and settlement documents.

The City of Toronto brought a motion requesting that the South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association (SJTG) be ordered to pay $500 in attendance money for four City staff members summoned by the SJTG to testify at a hearing.

The SJTG argued the Tribunal was functus officio and that City employees were not entitled to witness fees.

The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction as only an interim order had been issued, and held that the SJTG was responsible for paying the mandatory witness fees under the Rules.

The motion was allowed in part, and the SJTG was ordered to pay the $500.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a property in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted participant status to five individuals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the City sufficient time to review the appellant's revised application.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Signature Hill Corporation for the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 40-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two requestors.

A request for party status by a neighbouring property owner was deferred, with the Tribunal directing the requestor to bring a formal motion to clarify the specific reasons for seeking party status.

A motion hearing was scheduled, which may be converted to a second CMC if the issues are resolved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding three appeals filed against the County of Brant's Development Charges By-law No. 109-24.

The parties agreed to a procedural timeline for exchanging issues lists and interrogatories.

The Tribunal ordered the submission of a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 25, 2025.

The appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's Official Plan Amendment 182, which updated the definition of 'Employment Areas' to align with the Planning Act and Provincial Planning Statement, thereby excluding hotel uses.

The parties reached a settlement to modify OPA 182 to remove two of the appellants' hotel properties from the Employment Area designation, while retaining a third property within it.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications constituted good planning, were consistent with provincial policies, and approved the amendment as modified.

The applicant appealed conditions 4 and 5 of a provisional consent for a boundary adjustment, which required the removal of an existing driveway access to Highway 3.

The Tribunal found that the driveway had existed since the 1930s and was legally grandfathered under the Ministry of Transportation's Highway Corridor Management Manual.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, amending condition 4 and deleting condition 5, confirming the existing driveway may continue as a legal entrance.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment intended to facilitate the development of 45 stacked row dwelling condominiums.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised applications.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding the proposal represents good land use planning, constitutes appropriate residential intensification, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner on consent.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a revised draft plan excluding city-owned lands, set deadlines for the procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a seven-day video hearing for October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township of Seguin's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the redevelopment of a cottage and boathouse.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Lake Joseph North Association on consent.

The parties expressed openness to mediation, and the Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order, scheduling a three-day video hearing for September 2025.

The appellants appealed the City of Markham's passing of a heritage designation by-law for their property.

At the second Case Management Conference, the City admitted it failed to serve one of the co-owners with a notice of intent to designate as required by s. 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit written motion materials to determine the appropriate relief arising from the City's non-compliance.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment to facilitate a mixed-use community.

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

The Tribunal subsequently received a request on consent of the parties to amend the procedural order.

The Tribunal ordered the procedural order amended to add 1816986 Ontario Inc. as a party and updated the order of evidence accordingly.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit Heavy Industrial zoning on the subject lands.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that excludes certain heavy industrial uses, such as abattoirs and asphalt plants.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies and approved the zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-028.

The parties reached partial settlements, scoping the appeals to specific lands and two policies.

The Tribunal used its powers under s. 34(23.1) of the Planning Act to approve the non-appealed portions of the by-law, bringing them into full force and effect.

The remaining appeals were deferred pending the outcome of a related review application, and a fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled.