Ontario Land Tribunal

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's decision to impose certain conditions on a consent application to sever a lot for two semi-detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the disputed conditions, including requirements related to noise warnings and environmental protection.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised conditions were reasonable, consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the conditions.

The applicant requested a one-year extension to the lapsing date of a draft plan of subdivision and approval of minor revisions to the plan and conditions.

With the consent of the municipality, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted the extension to March 9, 2027, and approved the revised draft plan and modified conditions.

The applicant appealed a decision of the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance to reduce the required visitor parking spaces from 2 to 0 for a proposed three-storey, six-unit multiple dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the variance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the reduction supports transit-oriented intensification and improves the streetscape.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The appellant filed a request for review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision issued on August 15, 2025, relating to contested conditions of a draft plan of subdivision approval for lands in Ajax.

The Chair determined that the request met the threshold under Rule 25.7 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure to warrant a review.

The Tribunal ordered that the previous decision be set aside and rescinded, and directed that the appeal be re-heard by a differently constituted panel.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to a 9-day hearing scheduled to commence on October 20, 2026.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicant regarding the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 50-storey mixed-use building within a Protected Major Transit Station Area.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding two site-specific appeals of the City of London's 2016 Official Plan.

The appeals concerned properties at 560-562 Wellington Street and 3080 Bostwick Road.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed site-specific policies, which recognize existing zoning permissions and secondary plan permissions for increased height and density, represent good planning and are consistent with provincial policy.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and modified the Official Plan accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Walker Aggregates Inc. against the Region of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a mineral aggregate extraction operation.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached, significantly narrowing the issues.

The Tribunal granted requests to reschedule the hearing to a shorter 7-day duration in November 2026 and scheduled a fourth CMC for June 2026 to allow for finalization of settlement agreements and further discussions.

A Case Management Conference was held to establish a procedural order and schedule hearing dates for a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on November 30, 2026, and issued a Procedural Order governing the pre-hearing steps, including documentary discovery, witness statements, and expert reports.

The parties requested on consent to amend certain procedural timelines contained in a Procedural Order issued on August 11, 2025, regarding appeals of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the revised dates for meetings of like-experts, agreed statement of facts, witness statements, and responding statements.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's non-decision regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal determined that the application must conform to the newly enacted OPA 778, declining to apply the Clergy Principle.

While the Tribunal found that the proposed height and step-backs could be policy-supportive with certain modifications, it concluded that the proposed front setback failed to provide adequate soil volume and growing space for street trees, contrary to the City's Official Plan Street Tree Policies.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a 49-storey residential tower.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, Oulahen Team Realty Inc., but denied a party status request from two other individuals who failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal also consolidated the appeals and scheduled a 12-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Stillwater Station Ltd. for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use community in Ottawa.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian National Railway Company on consent.

A 12-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in April 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine the validity of appeals filed by the Six Nations of the Grand River against Official Plan Amendments 42 and 45 in the City of Kitchener.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing requested an adjournment of the motion to allow for without-prejudice settlement discussions, which was supported by the other parties.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and set a schedule for settlement updates and a rescheduled motion hearing if necessary.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application and two minor variance applications intended to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot with reduced minimum lot area and frontage on lands designated as prime agricultural and within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The applicant sought to sever a parcel containing an accessory agricultural dwelling from the retained parcel containing the primary dwelling and agricultural operations.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance would inappropriately fragment agricultural lands and that the accessory dwelling could not be legally separated from the principal agricultural use under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Tribunal also found that the requested minor variances failed the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed two-tower mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing 29- and 39-storey towers connected by a shared podium, including residential units, retail space, and an on-site parkland dedication.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by Laplante Poultry Farms Ltd. against a Director's Order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The order sets the hearing dates, procedural deadlines for disclosure, witness statements, and expert meetings, and identifies the parties and issues to be determined.

Several developers and industry associations appealed the City of Mississauga's Parkland Conveyance By-law under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Following the enactment of Bill 23, which amended parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu requirements, the parties reached a settlement to revise the by-law to conform to the new legislative provisions.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised by-law consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with the official plan, and representative of good planning.

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

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 Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted Party status to the school board, and granted Participant status to several individuals.

A procedural order timeline was established, and a second Case Management Conference and a 20-day hearing were scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant for the municipality's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several entities on consent and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for May 22, 2026.

Directions were also given for the submission of an issues list and a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the municipality's refusal of an application for an Official Plan Amendment to alter the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard designation boundaries on the subject lands to facilitate future residential development.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the Hazard Land Overlay and created a Special Policy Area requiring further environmental and geotechnical studies before development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence and approved the settlement, finding the revised amendment consistent with provincial policies and in the public interest.