OLT 2025

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of an application under s. 45(2)(a)(i) of the Planning Act to enlarge an existing legally non-conforming building.

The proposal involved demolishing two century-old semi-detached dwellings in the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District and reconstructing two larger semi-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found that the existing dwellings, although uninhabitable, remained structurally intact from the public realm and thus maintained their legally non-conforming use status.

Applying the Fraser Test, the Tribunal concluded the enlargement was desirable for the appropriate development of the lands and would not cause undue adverse impacts on the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the requested permissions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its decision issued on January 2, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 14 of the original decision was deleted and replaced to clarify the primary area of disagreement regarding whether the proposed development was properly categorized as residential or seasonal resort recreational development.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed medium-density residential development, including an eight-storey apartment building and stacked townhouses.

The City opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the neighbourhood character and would cause adverse shadow impacts on an adjacent school yard.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the development integrates well with the surrounding area, meets the City's Sun Shadow Guidelines, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, and represents good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit five residential apartment buildings.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association, but denied it to We Agree Mediation.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to 131 individuals and entities, and scheduled a 20-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order following Case Management Conferences regarding appeals by Blueland Farms Ltd. The appeals relate to a proposed aggregate extraction operation (gravel pit) in Caledon.

The Tribunal established the procedural rules, hearing dates, and the Issues List for the hearing scheduled to commence in October 2025.

The Tribunal previously allowed the applicant's appeals in part and approved the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in principle, withholding its final Order until certain conditions were met.

Having been advised by the City of Toronto that all conditions have been satisfied, the Tribunal issued its final Order amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit an 11-storey residential building.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use student residence building.

The parties reached a settlement for an 11-storey building with 463 units.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The City of Toronto brought a motion seeking to confirm the unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan), approve proposed modifications, and adjourn remaining site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested land use planning evidence that the modifications represent good planning and are consistent with provincial policies.

The Tribunal approved the modifications, confirmed the unappealed portions, and granted the requested adjournments on consent of the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an addendum to the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing of appeals concerning Official Plan Amendment 615.

The Phase 2 hearing will address whether OPA 615 should include a policy requiring the width of a new westerly north-south road to be shared between the Centerpoint Mall lands and neighbouring lands.

The order sets out the procedural dates and requirements for expert witnesses, document exchange, and the hearing plan.

The appellants objected to a by-law passed by the City of Richmond Hill designating their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the parties discussed the issues to be adjudicated and reviewed a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a final Issues List and subsequently set hearing dates for the matter.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2856973 Ontario Inc. against the City of Toronto for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application within the statutory timeframes.

The proposed development seeks to permit 18 back-to-back townhouses.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a consent Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits to commence on April 1, 2025.

The applicant received approval from the Committee of Adjustment to sever and create one additional residential lot.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the decision under subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, raising concerns about flooding, erosion hazards, and natural heritage impacts.

The parties reached a settlement proposing an additional condition requiring the applicant to obtain a permit from the Long Point Region Conservation Authority prior to the lot being created.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence, found the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and allowed the appeal in part to approve the provisional consent subject to the revised conditions.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seasonal resort recreational development on lands designated as prime agricultural.

Following initial evidence, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the number of seasonal cottages from 173 to 125, restricted occupancy to April through October, and increased public access to recreational amenities.

The Tribunal approved the revised planning instruments, finding that the seasonal recreational use would not adversely impact nearby agricultural resources, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Port Colborne's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that included additional visual screening and privacy measures.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies, conforming to local official plans, and representing good planning by encouraging intensification and housing diversity.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the Town of Hearst's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a salvage yard.

At the first Case Management Conference, it was determined that proper notice had not been served by the applicant.

A further CMC was scheduled, with the Town agreeing to serve notice.

Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the appeal, and the Tribunal closed the file.

The applicant, Precambrian Ventures Ltd., requested an order from the Ontario Land Tribunal to cancel a 'pending proceedings' notation on 39 mining claims.

The notation had been placed pending the outcome of a Superior Court of Justice action against 2801773 Ontario Inc. The Superior Court ordered the transfer of the mining claims to the applicant, resolving the matter.

The Tribunal granted the request, ordering the cancellation of the pending proceedings notice under s. 64(4.1) of the Mining Act.

The Tribunal also exercised its discretion under s. 64(5) to exclude the time the notice was in effect from the period required to perform assessment work, setting a new anniversary date of October 28, 2025.

The claimant brought a claim for determination of compensation under section 26(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The parties consented to an order dismissing the claim without costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the claim dismissed without costs.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 21-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial and municipal policies and approved them in principle, issuing an interim order withholding the final order until various conditions are satisfied.

The Tribunal previously allowed the applicant's appeal under section 34(11) of the Planning Act in part, approving a zoning by-law amendment in principle subject to conditions.

Having been advised by the City solicitor that the conditions have been satisfied, the Tribunal issued its final Order amending the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.