OLT 2026

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a commercial garage.

The municipality appeared through an employee and advised it would be retaining counsel.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the CMC to allow the municipality to retain counsel and scheduled a second CMC for June 11, 2026.

The appellant municipality appealed the Committee of Adjustment's conditional approval of consent and minor variance applications intended to permit the severance of a parcel of land and the construction of a single-detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on revised applications and conditions of approval.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and met the statutory criteria under the Planning Act.

The appeals were allowed in part to authorize the provisional consent and minor variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act regarding minor variances to permit a 15-storey building.

The Tribunal previously issued an interim order allowing the appeal in part and authorizing the variances in principle, subject to pre-conditions.

Having been advised that the pre-conditions were addressed to the satisfaction of the City of Toronto, the Tribunal issued its final order allowing the appeal in part and authorizing the variances.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a kennel as a home industry in an existing agricultural barn to house 13 personal dogs.

The Tribunal found that while the proposed use was generally consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement as an 'other rural land use', it did not conform to the County Official Plan due to the barn's proximity to a neighbouring residence and the potential for adverse noise impacts.

Furthermore, the proposal was not consistent with the intent of the Township's Zoning By-law, which explicitly prohibits kennels and defines them as commercial enterprises.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of three residential apartment buildings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents and the Region of Peel.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the proceeding sine die to allow the parties to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

The appellant paid a minor variance application fee of $8,970.00 under protest and appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under section 69(3) of the Planning Act.

The appellant argued the fee was unreasonably high and disproportionate to the small-scale nature of the backyard gazebo project.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the municipality established a reasonable connection between the fee charged and the anticipated full costs of processing minor variance applications, as supported by a comprehensive fee review study.

The appellant filed appeals regarding proposed residential developments.

A motion in writing was brought on consent to amend the A1 and M1 appeal forms to correct discrepancies in the statutory section references under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the motion, finding that correcting the forms to accurately reflect appeals under s. 17(24) and s. 51(39) of the Planning Act would offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the proceedings without causing prejudice to any party.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit seven townhouse dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed the municipality's adoption of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate a mixed-use development.

At the first case management conference, the parties advised the tribunal that they were engaged in resolution discussions.

The tribunal scheduled a second case management conference on the joint request of the parties and directed the filing of a procedural order and issues list.

The City of Richmond Hill adopted Comprehensive Zoning By-law 30-25 but later discovered notice deficiencies.

To protect appeal rights, the City repealed By-law 30-25 and replaced it with By-law 93-25.

At a Case Management Conference, the City requested that the Tribunal confirm the repeal of By-law 30-25 and dismiss the appeals against it as moot.

The Tribunal agreed, confirming the repeal and dismissing the appeals of By-law 30-25.

The Tribunal also provided procedural directions for the ongoing appeals of By-law 93-25, including scheduling a second Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a minor variance application seeking retroactive approval for an oversized viewing deck and storage shed built within the required shoreline setbacks of Long Lake.

The applicant argued the oversized deck was necessary for a family member's accessibility needs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variances failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's expert evidence that the structures posed ecological risks, circumvented proactive buffer policies, and represented overdevelopment of the shoreline inconsistent with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appellant brought a motion for costs following a successful appeal.

However, the respondent subsequently filed a Request for Review, which was granted by the Chair, resulting in the original decision being rescinded and a re-hearing ordered.

The Tribunal found the motion for costs to be premature and directed that it be considered at the conclusion of the re-hearing by a different Member.

The Tribunal considered a proposed partial settlement regarding appeals of the new Town of Collingwood Official Plan.

The settlement involved modifications to general policies to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, particularly concerning natural heritage and infrastructure.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the modifications, finding them consistent with provincial policy and good land use planning, without prejudice to remaining site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications within statutory timelines.

The Tribunal deferred rulings on participant status requests to clarify potential duplication.

A second CMC was scheduled for May 11, 2026, to finalize status requests and review the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant requested an amendment to the procedural timelines for an upcoming Phase 2 hearing regarding a proposed residential redevelopment and heritage demolition.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and revised the dates for the exchange of witness statements and reply witness statements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal concerning three consent applications for residential lot severances in the Town of Essex.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence for the three-day video hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2026.

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

The parties reached a settlement for a nine-storey apartment building with 252 units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning and transportation evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

Ontario One Call brought a motion to dismiss Gold Rock Construction & Landscaping Inc.'s appeal of a $10,000 administrative penalty for digging without locates.

The appellant failed to pay the mandatory penalty required to pursue an appeal, failed to comply with procedural directions, and did not attend the motion hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the administrative penalty.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 21-storey apartment building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals on consent, scheduled a five-day video hearing, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The parties requested an adjournment of a scheduled 15-day expropriation compensation hearing during a case management conference.

The Tribunal denied the request, noting its strict policy against adjourning fixed hearing dates on consent without a formal motion under Rule 17 and a compelling justification.

The Tribunal found that the delay in completing one examination for discovery did not warrant rescheduling the hearing, which was still four months away.

A revised procedural order was issued to adjust interim deadlines.