OLT 2025

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a residential redevelopment.

The Tribunal previously allowed the appeal in part and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of certain pre-conditions.

The parties having advised that the pre-conditions were satisfied, the Tribunal issued its final order amending the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 4, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to correct the spelling of counsel Diana Doracin's name in the appearances list.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.

The applicant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval to permit a residential development.

Following a settlement hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment and site plan subject to conditions.

The claimants brought a written motion on consent to consolidate two expropriation compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Transportation.

The proceedings relate to nearby properties allegedly impacted by the same expropriation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the requirements of Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure were satisfied and ordered the proceedings consolidated for all purposes.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicants concerning the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on October 20, 2025, for 20 days.

The applicants brought a motion for costs in the amount of $35,000 against the appellants following a merit hearing regarding a development permit application.

The applicants alleged the appellants' conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by religious discrimination.

The Tribunal found the motion completely lacking in substance and merit, noting no evidence of discrimination and that the appellants' case, though unsuccessful, was not unreasonable or devoid of merit.

The motion for costs was denied.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 12-storey mixed-use residential building.

The Tribunal previously approved the settlement proposal in principle, withholding its final order until certain conditions were met.

Having been advised that the conditions were fulfilled to the City's satisfaction, the Tribunal issued its final order amending the zoning by-law.

The related site plan appeal remains held in abeyance.

The moving party municipality brought a motion to strike the expert evidence of a witness and preclude him from testifying at an upcoming hearing regarding planning appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion without costs, issuing an interim order to provide immediate clarity before the hearing, with full reasons to follow.

The municipality is precluded from relying on the same grounds to limit or exclude the expert's evidence at the hearing, though it may challenge his qualifications on different grounds or cross-examine him on the motion materials.

The Township of Georgian Bay brought a motion for directions regarding the Ontario Land Tribunal's jurisdiction to determine the terms of a condominium agreement required as a condition of draft plan approval under section 51 of the Planning Act.

The appellant developers argued that an impasse had been reached and the Tribunal should intervene to resolve the implementation of the condition.

The Tribunal held that while it has the authority to assess the reasonableness of a condition and amend it, it lacks the statutory jurisdiction to dictate the specific contents of a subdivision or condominium agreement or to compel a municipality to execute such an agreement.

The Tribunal also struck portions of an affidavit from the record on the basis of settlement privilege.

The Township's motion was granted and the issue regarding the content of the agreement was struck from the issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard appeals regarding proposed Official Plan Amendments 49 and 56 for the Resort Village of Minett.

The parties reached a settlement on various aspects of the appeals, leaving one remaining issue regarding the maximum percentage of Resort-Related Dwelling Units permitted on RC3 lands.

After hearing expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the settled Official Plan Amendments 49 and 56.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a mixed-use development comprising live-work townhomes and an apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement during the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans, and approved the site plan subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment approving minor variances with conditions for a 3-storey addition to an existing 1-storey commercial building.

The appellant objected to a condition requiring opaque privacy screening on west-facing decks.

The parties agreed to modified conditions utilizing metal mesh railings and planter boxes to mitigate overlook.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances, subject to the modified conditions, met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellants appealed the Town of Halton Hills' approval of Official Plan Amendment 57, which establishes a Secondary Plan for the Stewarttown Area.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Stewarttown Community Association and participant status to one individual.

As the parties had scheduled a mediation assessment with the Tribunal's mediation team, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die pending the completion of the mediation process.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on consent and minor variance applications to sever a lot containing an existing residential dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal approved the consent subject to conditions and authorized the minor variances, finding they were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 50-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement based on a revised proposal.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including finalization of the amending instruments and infrastructure matters.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order amending the procedural timelines contained in a previously issued Procedural Order, on consent of the parties.

The amendments adjusted the dates for exchanging witness statements, expert witness statements, and reply statements for the upcoming hearing regarding appeals under the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered a revised proposal for four new mixed-use buildings containing 1,649 new residential units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal conforms to the Official Plan, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until various preconditions are satisfied.

The appellant appealed the Town of Georgina's comprehensive zoning by-law update, which rezoned their vacant property to Environmental Protection (EP) and Agricultural Protection (AP).

At the hearing, the unrepresented appellant expressed concerns that the zoning would prevent future development.

After the Town's planner explained that the zoning merely reflected the Official Plan and that any future development would require a rezoning application and an Environmental Impact Study, the appellant took no position and led no evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the Town's uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the by-law conforms to the Official Plan and provincial policies, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of North Bay's refusal of its draft plan of condominium to permit the conversion of 60 existing townhouses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested a second CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to provide a draft procedural order and issues list beforehand.

The City of Sarnia appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a residential townhouse development on lands in the Village of Point Edward.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a phased development utilizing holding provisions to address scale thresholds, servicing, and noise mitigation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.