OLT 2025

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern an upcoming 10-day hearing regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of St. Catharines.

The appeals relate to the city's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and the refusal of an application to permit the demolition of a heritage property and redevelopment of the site with a 4-storey residential and commercial building.

The order establishes the schedule for the exchange of witness statements, expert reports, and visual evidence, and finalizes the issues list.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and its refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a two-storey Buddhist temple.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal with increased parking and a redesigned building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, York Region Official Plan, and local planning documents.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under s. 22(6.2) of the Planning Act to determine whether its Official Plan Amendment application should be deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

The City had issued notices of incomplete application citing various outstanding studies and reports, including an archaeological assessment, karst assessment, and approved terms of reference for environmental studies.

The Tribunal found that the City's grounds for deeming the application incomplete were insufficient, as many of the requested items were either not prescribed by the Act, not required by the Official Plan, or had been adequately addressed by the applicant's submissions.

The motion was granted and the application was deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit additional residential dwelling units within existing mixed-use structures, increased density, and off-site parking.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances, subject to conditions including a permanent parking agreement, met the four-part test under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the agreed conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority's refusal of permission for an existing single detached dwelling.

After the Conservation Authority failed to respond to multiple communications regarding the draft Procedural Order, the Tribunal issued the Procedural Order as filed by the appellant, setting a three-day hearing to commence on April 27, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. against a Director's Order concerning air emissions and biofilter installation.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation and confirmed no motion to stay was necessary.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence by video on June 16, 2026, and directed the parties to file a final Procedural Order and Issues List by June 1, 2026.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Toronto Catholic District School Board against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for two adjacent mixed-use developments.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together, granted participant status to a local resident, scheduled a five-day merit hearing, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the Town of The Blue Mountains' Zoning By-law No. 2018-65 under section 34(19) of the Planning Act to facilitate a 19-unit residential development.

The parties reached a full settlement on consent.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conforms to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law was amended to implement the settlement.

A fourth Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by the applicant against the respondent's failure to approve site plans for a commercial development within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal removed the applicant's former counsel from the record on consent.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions, including deadlines for the respondent to comment on technical studies and for the parties to submit a draft Issues List, and scheduled a fifth Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference to obtain a status update regarding a previous Interim Order that approved a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision in principle.

The appellant sought direction to progress the matter towards a Final Order after the municipality and another party failed to respond to draft conditions.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day hearing event to consider the issuance of a Final Order.

The Appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a high-density mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Peel District School Board without objection.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a Procedural Order and scoped Issues List.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Pegasus Development Corporation against the Town of Carleton Place's new Town-wide Development Permit By-law.

The Tribunal granted party status to Inverness Homes Inc., approved the Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on August 10, 2026.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to adjourn the Phase 2B Hearing regarding appeals by the appellant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The City argued that there was insufficient time to prepare for the scheduled January 2026 dates due to the complexity of the issues and the need for expert coordination.

The appellant consented to a short adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing to commence in February 2026.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 15-storey residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to Canadian National Railway Company and Surob Developments Limited, and participant status to several individuals without objection.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Town of Milton brought a motion on consent to bring Official Plan Amendment No. 86 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 036-2025 into full force and effect, save and except for specific properties that remain under appeal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted planning evidence that partial approval would provide clarity and promote orderly planning without prejudicing the appellants.

The Tribunal ordered the instruments into full force and effect on a Town-wide basis, with the site-specific appeals adjourned sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Windsor's refusal of applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Proposed Plan of Subdivision to permit a 27-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, consolidated the appeals, and scheduled a five-day merit hearing for April 2026.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Guelph's Development Charges By-law.

The appellant sought an exemption for a proposed student residence.

The Tribunal determined that a two-day merit hearing with viva voce evidence was appropriate and scheduled the hearing for January 2026.

The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs of $69,649.87 against the Township following a successful appeal regarding a Temporary Use By-Law.

The moving party alleged the Township and its planning witness exhibited unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith conduct.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the Township's planning staff had reversed their opinions and treated the moving party unfairly prior to the appeal, their conduct during the actual proceeding did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under Rule 23.9.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a residential lot and associated minor variances.

The applicant sought to create a new lot and retain the existing dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance failed to satisfy the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, primarily because the Official Plan required such severances to proceed via a Zoning By-law Amendment rather than a minor variance application.

Consequently, the Tribunal also found that the requested variances failed the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Appellant appealed the levying of fees by the Town of Milton for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, having paid $231,371.70 under protest pursuant to section 69(3) of the Planning Act.

The Appellant argued the fees were unreasonable as they exceeded the cost of preparing the original application materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Town's fees were reasonably connected to its anticipated processing costs, as supported by a comprehensive User Fee Review Study, and that the Act does not require fees to be based on the actual costs incurred by the applicant.