Ontario Land Tribunal

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 720, which introduced new complete application requirements.

The parties reached a resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal ordered that OPA 720 came into effect on June 19, 2024, except for the site-specific appeals by Calmco Inc. and Dunpar Development Inc., which were adjourned sine die.

The Tribunal further ordered that these site-specific appeals would be deemed withdrawn once the respective applications for the properties are deemed complete.

The applicant appealed the City of North Bay's refusal of its draft plan of condominium to permit the conversion of 60 existing townhouses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested a second CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to provide a draft procedural order and issues list beforehand.

The claimants brought a written motion on consent to consolidate two expropriation compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Transportation.

The proceedings relate to nearby properties allegedly impacted by the same expropriation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the requirements of Rule 16 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure were satisfied and ordered the proceedings consolidated for all purposes.

The applicant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval to permit a residential development.

Following a settlement hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment and site plan subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment approving minor variances with conditions for a 3-storey addition to an existing 1-storey commercial building.

The appellant objected to a condition requiring opaque privacy screening on west-facing decks.

The parties agreed to modified conditions utilizing metal mesh railings and planter boxes to mitigate overlook.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances, subject to the modified conditions, met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed a decision of the City of Burlington's Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances related to parking requirements for a 28-storey mixed-use building.

The scheduled merit hearing was converted to a Case Management Conference after the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached in principle.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day written hearing to consider the settlement and directed the parties to provide the necessary supporting materials.

The applicants brought a motion for costs in the amount of $35,000 against the appellants following a merit hearing regarding a development permit application.

The applicants alleged the appellants' conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by religious discrimination.

The Tribunal found the motion completely lacking in substance and merit, noting no evidence of discrimination and that the appellants' case, though unsuccessful, was not unreasonable or devoid of merit.

The motion for costs was denied.

The claimant in an expropriation compensation proceeding brought an unopposed motion for a confidentiality order under Rule 22.2 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules.

The claimant sought to protect its own sensitive financial and business information, as well as proprietary market data obtained from a non-party data provider, Kalibrate Canada Inc. The Tribunal found that the information involved intimate financial matters whose protection outweighed the public interest in open proceedings.

The motion was granted and the confidentiality order issued.

The moving party municipality brought a motion to strike the expert evidence of a witness and preclude him from testifying at an upcoming hearing regarding planning appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion without costs, issuing an interim order to provide immediate clarity before the hearing, with full reasons to follow.

The municipality is precluded from relying on the same grounds to limit or exclude the expert's evidence at the hearing, though it may challenge his qualifications on different grounds or cross-examine him on the motion materials.

The City of Sarnia appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a residential townhouse development on lands in the Village of Point Edward.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a phased development utilizing holding provisions to address scale thresholds, servicing, and noise mitigation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Town of Halton Hills' approval of Official Plan Amendment 57, which establishes a Secondary Plan for the Stewarttown Area.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Stewarttown Community Association and participant status to one individual.

As the parties had scheduled a mediation assessment with the Tribunal's mediation team, the Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die pending the completion of the mediation process.

At a Case Management Conference regarding site-specific appeals of the Town of New Tecumseth's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2021-128, the parties provided a status update indicating ongoing settlement discussions.

The parties requested a further CMC in the fall of 2025 to either approve a settlement or set a hearing date.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a further appearance at this time, directing the parties to contact the Case Coordinator once they determine whether they have reached a settlement or require a hearing date.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. against the City of Hamilton for failing to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for an urban boundary expansion.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and requested an eight-week hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing to commence in April 2026 and issued the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion to strike portions of witness statements or, alternatively, for leave to file new witness statements ahead of an impending hearing.

The respondent municipality brought a cross-motion.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting the applicant leave to file the new witness statements and granting the municipality leave to add a responding witness, subject to strict timelines, with full reasons to follow.

The Tribunal issued an order amending the procedural timelines for a hearing scheduled to commence on March 4, 2025, regarding appeals of the Town of Georgina's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

On consent of the parties, the deadline to prepare and share a joint document book was extended from February 21, 2025, to February 26, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order amending the procedural timelines contained in a previously issued Procedural Order, on consent of the parties.

The amendments adjusted the dates for exchanging witness statements, expert witness statements, and reply statements for the upcoming hearing regarding appeals under the Planning Act.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 50-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement based on a revised proposal.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including finalization of the amending instruments and infrastructure matters.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on consent and minor variance applications to sever a lot containing an existing residential dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal approved the consent subject to conditions and authorized the minor variances, finding they were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a mixed-use development comprising live-work townhomes and an apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement during the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans, and approved the site plan subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated February 4, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to correct the spelling of counsel Diana Doracin's name in the appearances list.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.