Ontario Land Tribunal

The applicants appealed the refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to construct a new detached dwelling.

Following a case management conference, the Tribunal issued a procedural order.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal amended the procedural timelines leading up to the hearing scheduled for August 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the City's approval of revised conditions for a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties advised they were in the final stages of executing a settlement and requested a subsequent CMC be scheduled in case the settlement did not proceed.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC, directing the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order if the settlement fails.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that approved variances to retain an as-built gazebo but imposed a condition requiring the removal of a patio.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to authorize the variances subject only to a condition requiring a Site Plan Agreement for a planting plan to re-vegetate the shoreline buffer, without requiring the patio's removal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part to authorize the variances subject to the revised condition.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal to issue a demolition permit for two semi-detached cottages designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued that the properties had lost their heritage integrity due to extensive alterations over time and were in poor condition, making demolition and replacement appropriate.

The City maintained that the properties retained their heritage attributes and that demolition was inconsistent with heritage conservation policies.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the original designation was supportable and that the alternatives of rehabilitation and preservation had not been fully explored, concluding that demolition is a means of last resort.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's deferral of a minor variance application to permit a farm labour residence in the basement of an approved agri-tourism retreat.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised variance request.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and had appropriate regard for provincial interests.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a minor variance to facilitate the construction of a new 96-bed long-term care facility.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing, agreeing to the variance subject to noise mitigation conditions.

The Tribunal found the variance, which reduced the interior side yard setback from 50 metres to 1.2 metres, met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal authorized the variance subject to conditions regarding consent approval and noise mitigation, but declined to impose a requested condition regarding a private agreement under the Industrial and Mining Lands Compensation Act due to lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding a site plan approval previously granted by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal granted the motion, striking several issues from the issues list and prohibiting the City from raising additional pre-approval conditions outside its jurisdiction under the City of Toronto Act or the Planning Act.

The City was permitted to add post-approval conditions provided they do not prohibit the development from proceeding in accordance with the approved site plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to a 29-day merit hearing scheduled to commence on February 17, 2026.

The appeals relate to the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit five mixed-use buildings.

The Order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The appellant appealed the Town of Newmarket Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct an Additional Residential Unit (ARU) in the basement of a dwelling.

The requested variances included allowing one parking space within a double car garage to count towards the ARU parking requirement and reducing interior side yard setbacks to permit a walkway.

The Town did not attend the hearing but provided a staff report supporting the variances subject to conditions.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting they would facilitate affordable housing options without adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to the Town's conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by Townline Development Holding Inc. concerning the Town of Huntsville's failure to make a decision on applications for a plan of subdivision and a community planning permit by-law amendment.

The applications propose the development of 96 residential units.

The procedural order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 40-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day hearing for November 2025 and directed the parties to submit a finalized procedural order.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 69-storey residential building.

Following a case management conference, a nearby resident was granted participant status, and his condominium corporation (MTCC 780) was advised to proceed quickly if it also sought participant status.

MTCC 780 subsequently delayed its request and submitted written submissions after the deadline.

The Tribunal denied MTCC 780's request for participant status due to inordinate and unexplained delay, but ordered that its written submissions remain in the case file for the presiding member at the settlement hearing to consider.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the pre-hearing steps and the 19-day hearing of consolidated claims for expropriation compensation brought by Bendale Parkway Limited, Mirmor Investments Limited, and Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. against Metrolinx.

The order establishes a timetable for pleadings, discovery, mediation, and the exchange of expert evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding a claim for compensation by Capital Paving Inc. against several utility companies under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, setting out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, the order of evidence, and the timetable leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to begin in November 2026.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit an existing cottage addition and accessory structures.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant brought a motion seeking an order confirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the appeal was not substantially different from the application considered by Township Council.

The Township raised concerns about the scope of the appeal and the lack of planning details in the original application.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, confirming its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and dismissed the applicant's request to strike portions of the Township's response based on alleged settlement privilege.

A two-day merit hearing was scheduled.

Following a case management conference, a corporation requested party status in an appeal concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed development.

With the consent of the other three parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the requesting corporation.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued procedural directions.

The parties advised that the estimated hearing length could be reduced from 40 to 29 days.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file written submissions on their preferred mode of hearing and set a deadline for any motions to limit or exclude evidence.

The hearing was rescheduled to commence on June 9, 2025, and end on July 18, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment Application.

The application seeks to facilitate the development of 19 new residential units.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing for October 2025.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 20-storey building.

The parties reached a full, uncontested settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal promotes efficient infill development, provides diverse housing options including three-bedroom units, and aligns with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including infrastructure agreements and heritage conservation plans.

The appellant appealed a condition imposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission on a development permit for a residential addition.

The condition required the appellant to enter into an agreement on title prohibiting more than one dwelling unit on the property.

The Hearing Officer found that the condition was speculative, redundant, and an overreach, as secondary dwelling units are already prohibited under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Minister of Natural Resources adopted the Hearing Officer's recommendation and directed the issuance of the permit without the disputed condition.