Ontario Land Tribunal

The appellant appealed an Order of Administrative Penalty of $10,000 imposed by Ontario One Call for excavating without locates.

The appellant failed to appear at the first Case Management Conference despite multiple attempts to contact them.

The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence and set staggered deadlines for witness statements, as well as scheduling a motion to dismiss and a merit hearing.

The Tribunal previously withheld its Final Order pending confirmation that certain pre-requisite matters were satisfied.

Having received confirmation from the City of Toronto that the matters were satisfied and that all parties consented, the Tribunal issued its Final Order allowing the appeal and amending Zoning By-law 569-2013 to permit the redevelopment of the subject property with a 45-storey residential tower.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, as well as applications under the Ontario Heritage Act, to permit a two-tower residential development at 123 Wynford Drive.

The site contains a designated heritage building originally designed by Raymond Moriyama for the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre.

The applicant proposed a conservation strategy involving the temporary relocation, partial disassembly, and reassembly of the heritage building to form the podium of one of the towers.

The City and the National Association of Japanese Canadians opposed the development, arguing it would destroy the site's cultural heritage value.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, preferring the applicant's expert evidence that the development represents good planning, provides needed housing intensification near transit, and appropriately conserves the heritage attributes through the proposed dismantling and reassembly strategy.

The applicant appealed the township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a six-storey residential building.

At the first case management conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals on consent.

The parties requested a timeline to allow the township's counsel to receive further instructions from council.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day hearing on the merits for October 2026 and directed the parties to file a procedural order and issues list.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 20 Leslie Street Inc. arising from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment within the statutory timeline.

The Tribunal granted party status to Atura Power, a specified person operating an electric utility nearby, and participant status to a local resident concerned about shadowing and business impacts.

A nine-day hearing was scheduled for November 2026.

The appellant appealed the refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the creation of an undersized 8.2-hectare agricultural lot in a prime agricultural area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed instruments did not have regard for the protection of agricultural resources under s. 2(b) of the Planning Act and were not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, as they would result in the fragmentation of prime agricultural land and limit flexibility for future agricultural uses.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the municipality's by-law designating a former Quaker meeting house as a property of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued the property lacked design and contextual value due to alterations and insufficient analysis of its relationship to the historic area.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the property is a representative example of a muted Gothic Revival style consistent with Quaker values and that its physical characteristics support the character of the historic district.

The appeal was dismissed, and the designation was upheld.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to the school boards and conservation authority.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue discussions and finalize a draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against applications for a 667-unit residential development in the Township of Wilmot.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Stremma Developments, directed a motion in writing to correct a discrepancy in the appeal forms, and scheduled a 15-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation compensation claim by the claimant against the respondent for lands acquired for the Ontario Line subway system.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing to commence on May 31, 2027, and issued a Procedural Order governing the pre-hearing steps, including document exchange, mediation, discoveries, and expert witness meetings.

The appellant appealed the Town of Whitby's Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Land Tribunal to facilitate the development of a distribution warehouse centre.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed the enactment of a Development Charges By-law by the Township of Severn.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties provided an update, submitted a draft Procedural Order, and requested dates for a five-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's refusal and the County of Essex's failure to make a decision regarding applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to facilitate a land swap.

The proposal sought to exchange the land use designations of two 4.4-hectare parcels, moving future residential development away from natural features and into an agricultural area.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed land swap constitutes a 'development' and creates a 'new settlement area' under the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The applicant failed to provide the required environmental, servicing, and agricultural impact assessments to demonstrate consistency with provincial policies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Welland's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments seek to permit three high-rise residential buildings and two stacked townhouse blocks.

The Tribunal granted party status to a residents' group and participant status to two individuals.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled for October 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved to govern the proceedings.

The Municipality of Thames Centre and the County of Middlesex brought an uncontested motion for directions to approve certain modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 27 (OPA 27).

The modifications resolved the appeal by Fred Jamieson regarding Additional Residential Units and re-designated specific lands from Agricultural to Rural Industrial.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modifications were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the modifications and brought into effect the policies not subject to the remaining appeal by Sifton Properties Limited, which was adjourned sine die.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) brought a motion to strike three issues proposed by the appellant for an upcoming hearing regarding a development permit application.

The issues challenged whether the subject property was within TRCA's jurisdiction and whether the proposed development was within 'hazardous lands' or a 'river or stream valley'.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that these issues had already been litigated and decided by the Superior Court of Justice in a related Building Code Act appeal.

Allowing the issues to proceed would create the potential for a conflicting decision and amount to an impermissible collateral attack on the Court's decision.

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a sunroom addition with reduced interior side yard and rear yard setbacks.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to revised variance parameters.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the revised variances were authorized, subject to obtaining approval from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend the procedural timelines established in a previous procedural order.

The dates for exchanging witness statements, expert reports, participant statements, and reply witness statements were extended in preparation for the hearing scheduled to commence on April 20, 2026.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's failure to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision applications, the Tribunal granted party status to two neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal also directed that the related appeals be heard together and established a timeline for the parties to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order ahead of the next Case Management Conference.

The Appellant brought a motion for costs against the Municipality and a private respondent, seeking 75% of his legal expenses on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging unreasonable and vexatious conduct.

The private respondent also sought costs of the motion.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding that the conduct complained of—including the municipality's initial refusal without reasons, pursuit of allegedly irrelevant issues, failure to settle, and a recusal request—did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award.