OLT 2025

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the County of Perth's refusal to amend the Official Plan to permit a 19-unit townhouse development.

The County withdrew its objection and the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two sets of neighbours and scheduled a settlement hearing for March 12, 2025, declining to hear settlement evidence immediately to allow participants to be heard and to coordinate with a related zoning by-law amendment appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day hearing regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal or neglect to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the hearing.

The appellant sought to amend an earlier interim order approving a 21-storey residential building to incorporate an adjacent property into the development proposal.

The revised proposal included adding townhouses, increasing the total number of units from 237 to 246, and adjusting setbacks and landscape buffers.

Based on uncontradicted expert evidence and the consent of all parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the revised proposal, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of municipal engineering and design conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to create three new residential lots and construct two new semi-detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the neighbourhood association reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and compliant with the Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, granting provisional consent and authorizing the minor variances subject to conditions.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that granted an applicant's request to amend a condition of a provisional consent for a land severance.

The condition related to demonstrating adequate water quality for the proposed lots.

The applicant sought to amend the condition to allow for a minor sodium aesthetic exceedance that would be treated with an in-home reverse osmosis system.

The City argued the exceedance violated its guidelines and Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the guidelines were non-statutory interpretive tools, the health parameters were met, and the amendment conformed to the Official Plan and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The appellant appealed the City of Welland's refusal to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a mixed-use apartment and street townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement involving a revised proposal for a seven-storey mixed-use building and 25 townhouses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and local planning documents.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision dated January 15, 2025.

The amendment replaced Paragraph 66 to accurately reflect the evidence of a witness regarding the provision of affordable housing and the absence of a policy mandating it on a site-specific basis.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

A case management conference was held regarding appeals for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, a plan of subdivision, and site plan approval to permit a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner, Duff Real Estate Holdings Inc., finding it raised genuine land use planning issues.

The Tribunal also granted the parties' joint request to adjourn the hearing to allow further time for discussions, scheduling a 15-day merit hearing for October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Ontario Graphite Ltd. against Environmental Penalty Orders issued by the Director of the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

The orders relate to contaminated water allegedly emitted from a former graphite mine.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing to commence on June 9, 2025, and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Achille Developments Ltd. for a proposed 364-unit residential subdivision in the Town of Wasaga Beach, following the Town's failure to make decisions on official plan, zoning, and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Simcoe and Wasaga Sands Heritage Group Ltd., and participant status to several individuals.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for September 2025.

The appellant appealed two City-initiated Official Plan Amendments (OPA 218 and OPA 41) and a Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

At the first Case Management Conference, the appellant formally withdrew the appeals relating to the Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawals, closed those files, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the remaining Zoning By-law Amendment appeal.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's refusal of a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of 11 freehold townhouse dwelling units.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good land use planning, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conforms to the regional and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a residential lot to create two new single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the City passed a new comprehensive zoning by-law, and the parties reached a settlement amending the lot lines to comply with the new by-law without requiring minor variances.

An adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the settlement, arguing the smaller lots were incompatible with the neighbourhood and premature pending a municipal drainage study.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, finding the amended proposal was compatible with the new zoning standards and that stormwater management concerns were adequately addressed through the agreed conditions of consent.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 28-storey residential building connected to an 8-storey retirement residence.

Following an interim decision allowing the appeal in part, the Tribunal received the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment satisfactory to the City.

The Tribunal issued its final order amending the Zoning By-law accordingly.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision and order dated January 15, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the end date of the merit hearing from Friday, June 24, 2025, to Friday, June 20, 2025.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings in a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The claim relates to the expropriation of property by Metrolinx for the construction of the Scarborough Subway Extension.

The order sets out the schedule for documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, expert meetings, and the exchange of witness statements leading up to a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on April 28, 2025.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to facilitate a 50-unit townhouse development.

The variances sought to increase the maximum density and reduce the minimum exterior side yard setback for one unit.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant and the municipality reached a settlement.

An adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the variances.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence supporting the settlement, finding that the modified variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, and allowed the appeal in part.

The claimant sought an assessment of legal costs under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act following a settlement with the expropriating authority.

The authority argued that interest was not payable on unpaid legal accounts and that the claimant's costs were excessive due to duplication.

The Tribunal held that reasonable legal fees are payable regardless of whether they have been paid by the claimant, and that interest on those fees is compensable from the date of settlement.

The Tribunal reduced the claimant's legal costs by 10-20% for certain stages due to excessive internal discussions, awarding $356,755.45 in pre-settlement costs plus interest.

The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the new Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The parties disputed whether certain issues on the draft Issues List complied with the statutory requirements of s. 17(37.1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to engage in further discussions and explore Tribunal-led mediation to resolve the Issues List.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing regarding Mineral Aggregate Resource Policies until the Issues List is finalized.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day merit hearing and directed the parties to submit a final procedural order and issues list.