OLT 2025

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order on consent amending the procedural timelines, the Issues List, and the hearing commencement date for appeals concerning a proposed multi-phase residential redevelopment and the demolition of a heritage building in the Municipality of Clarington.

The 10-day merit hearing was rescheduled to commence on March 24, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a residential and mixed-use development.

Following a settlement hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in principle but withheld its final order pending the fulfillment of certain conditions.

The City Solicitor confirmed the conditions were satisfied, and the Tribunal issued its final order amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its January 31, 2025 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the decision to insert Schedules 1 through 6 into Attachment 1.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The claimant filed a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act against the City of Toronto.

The parties subsequently agreed to dismiss the matter on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the matter dismissed on a without costs basis.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for the Centrepoint Mall site, and appeals of the City-initiated Yonge Street North Secondary Plan (OPA 615).

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Vaughan without objection.

The parties agreed to schedule a 10-day merit hearing and submitted a draft Procedural Order, which the Tribunal approved and appended to its decision.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a nine-storey residential building within the statutory timeframe.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they had made progress but a dispute remained regarding road widening.

The Tribunal initially scheduled a three-day merit hearing, but at the parties' request, converted it to a one-day telephone case conference to allow for further settlement discussions.

The applicant appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to redefine wetland and hazard zones and establish development envelopes.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 7-storey proposal, contingent on the appellant acquiring a strip of public laneway.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policy and conforms to the applicable official and secondary plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the conveyance of the laneway.

During a hearing on the merits of appeals concerning Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and heritage permits, it was revealed that an expert witness for the appellants had communicated via email with another of the appellants' experts who had already testified.

The Town of Oakville requested disclosure of the emails, which the appellants initially refused, citing litigation privilege.

After the emails were eventually disclosed, the Town indicated its intent to bring a motion to dismiss the appeals with prejudice based on alleged perjury and violations of the expert duty acknowledgement.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and set a schedule for the Town's motion to dismiss to proceed in writing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in a previous decision and order dated December 23, 2024.

The corrections included the spelling of counsel names and a site name.

The amendment was made pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The claimant commenced a proceeding under subsection 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the determination of compensation related to the GO Lakeshore East-West Corridor Expansion Project.

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 Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. against Norfolk County's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed three-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a five-day merits hearing to commence by video on October 27, 2025.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by the applicant against the Town of Kingsville and the County of Essex regarding a proposed settlement area boundary adjustment through a land swap.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on April 8, 2025, for three days.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a teleconference to establish a procedural order for a land compensation arbitration under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal ordered the claimants to produce financial statements and tax returns, and issued a procedural order governing the steps leading up to a 14-day hearing scheduled to commence in July 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of London's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a six-storey, 43-unit residential condominium.

The parties reached a settlement, which the City Council endorsed.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the planning instruments.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to retain a qualified person to conduct an environmental site assessment regarding soil and groundwater contamination.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming hearing.

On consent of the Director, the Tribunal also ordered a stay of items 1 through 6 of the Director's Order pending the completion of the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Township's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that defined and regulated the use of storage containers on lands within the municipality.

The appellant argued the regulation of storage containers was ultra vires the Planning Act and overly broad.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment appropriately regulated land use and outdoor storage, conformed to the local Official Plan, and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of stacked townhouses on a former school site.

The City argued the proposal did not conform to the Official Plan's requirement to respect and reinforce the existing neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the site, as a former institutional use, qualified for infill development exceptions under the Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed density, built-form, and height were contextually appropriate and supported by technical studies.

The City of Markham passed a by-law designating a 1890s farmhouse as a property of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant appealed the designation, arguing that the property only met one of the required criteria.

The Tribunal found that while the property met the criterion for design value as a representative Gothic Revival farmhouse, it did not meet the criteria for historical or contextual value.

As a property must meet at least two criteria to be eligible for designation, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the by-law repealed.