OLT 2026

The expropriating authority sought to expropriate temporary and permanent easements over the owners' properties to facilitate a road widening and bus rapid transit project.

The owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed permanent easement for a hydro pole and the temporary easements for construction access and grading were fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the expropriating authority's objectives.

The Tribunal recommended that the temporary easements include a fixed expiry date and specific details regarding permitted uses to provide certainty to the owners.

The Tribunal also recommended that the expropriating authority pay $200 in costs to each of the participating owners.

The applicant appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications to sever a property into four new residential lots and one retained lot, each containing two additional residential units.

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

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed severances were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformed to the applicable Official Plans and zoning by-laws.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted provisional consent subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The claimant filed a compensation claim against the Ministry of Transportation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to organize the proceeding.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a nine-day hybrid hearing to commence in March 2027.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment within the statutory timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties jointly requested that the matter be adjourned sine die as they were in active discussions and it was premature to schedule a merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the appeal sine die.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a Community Planning Permit Application to legalize an as-built two-storey sleeping cabin.

The cabin exceeded the maximum permitted gross floor area and building height.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the cabin, built on the foundation of a former garage, was well set back from the shoreline and visually screened by mature vegetation.

The Tribunal found the application consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the applicable Official Plans, and compliant with the general intent of the Community Planning Permit By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the permit was granted.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to legalize an over-widened driveway.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to authorize the variance subject to conditions preventing further widening and requiring a curb cutting application.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the statutory tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal.

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 facilitate a 40-storey residential building.

Following a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontradicted planning evidence that the proposed amendments conform to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, with the amendments approved in principle and the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including servicing, transportation, and tenant relocation requirements.

The applicant appealed the Township's denial of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback and increase the permitted floor area for an existing guest cabin on a shoreline property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that involved partially demolishing the cabin to comply with the maximum floor area and amending the requested front yard setback to 13.0 metres.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variance met the four-part test under the Planning Act and authorized the variance.

The Town of LaSalle brought a motion for directions to declare unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan) in force and effect.

The appellants had agreed to scope their appeals on a site-specific or area-specific basis.

Sorge Enterprises Inc., a non-appellant party sheltering under the appellants' issues, opposed the motion, arguing that the appeals should not be scoped and the broader Environmental Protection Designation should remain under appeal for all lands.

The Tribunal granted the Town's motion, finding that a non-appellant sheltering party has no right to craft issues or dictate the scope of appeals, which is the prerogative of the actual appellants.

The unappealed portions of the OPA were declared in force and effect.

The Appellant appealed the Township's passage of an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) that prohibits human habitation uses on properties zoned institutional.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of North Bay's adoption of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as the refusal of consent and minor variance applications for a property on Trout Lake.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together and scoped the policy appeals to be site-specific to the subject property.

Several area residents were granted participant status, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a procedural order and issues list.

The applicant appealed the City of Brantford'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 residential development with a townhouse block.

Following a settlement between the parties on the Official Plan Amendment, the parties reached a settlement on the remaining appeals.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development and draft plan conditions consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's partial refusal of minor variances for an accessory structure (gazebo) built without a permit.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal addressed the applicant's request for a bilingual hearing.

The Tribunal directed the City to translate its Expert Witness Statement into French prior to the Merit Hearing, as the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law are only available in English.

A two-day Merit Hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to expand the settlement area boundary.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner who raised concerns about density and environmental impacts.

The new party also filed a Notice of Constitutional Question regarding the Crown's duty to consult Indigenous groups, which the Tribunal scheduled to be heard as a motion for directions.

The Tribunal declined the applicant's request to schedule a hearing, finding it premature, and instead scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The applicant requested revisions to the draft plan conditions for a proposed mixed-use development in the Township of Woolwich.

The Tribunal, on consent of the parties, ordered that the draft plan approval apply to the revised draft plan and replaced the previously approved draft plan conditions.

The Tribunal also delegated authority to the Township of Woolwich to clear the conditions and administer final approval of the plan of subdivision.

The appellants appealed the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Site Plan Approval applications for a three-tower mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on the OPA and ZBA appeals, proposing 42-, 45-, and 50-storey towers with 1,500 residential units and a new public park.

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

The Tribunal allowed the OPA and ZBA appeals in part, approving the instruments in principle subject to conditions, while adjourning the subdivision and site plan appeals.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to construct a two-storey detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised application that eliminated one variance and modified others.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, representing good planning and appropriate infill development.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised variances were authorized subject to conditions.

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

The City and TRCA brought a joint motion to strike certain witness statement evidence, which was granted in part.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and conformed to the applicable York Region Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft OPA and ZBA in principle, subject to a holding provision requiring a finalized Tree Removal, Compensation and Restoration Mitigation Plan.

The applicants brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals of a development permit approval for the expansion of an existing retreat use on the subject property.

The applicants argued that the appeals lacked genuine planning issues, constituted an abuse of process by re-litigating previously resolved issues, and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Hearing Officer denied the motion, finding that the appeals raised legitimate planning questions regarding whether the proposed expansion complied with the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officer concluded that the appeals disclosed a planning justification, were not frivolous or vexatious, and did not constitute an abuse of process, as the issue of expanding the existing use had not been previously adjudicated.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a commercial plaza.

At the first case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the county on consent.

The Tribunal approved the draft procedural order and scheduled a second case management conference and a three-day video hearing.