Ontario Land Tribunal

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 12-storey mixed-use residential building.

The Tribunal previously approved the settlement proposal in principle, withholding its final order until certain conditions were met.

Having been advised that the conditions were fulfilled to the City's satisfaction, the Tribunal issued its final order amending the zoning by-law.

The related site plan appeal remains held in abeyance.

The appellant sought a Zoning By-law Amendment to retroactively legalize unauthorized development on a waterfront property, including additions to a seasonal cottage and various decks within the prescribed 30-metre shoreline setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the requested exceptions failed to conform with the Township Official Plan's strict shoreline setback policies designed to protect the ecological and heritage features of the Rideau Canal waterway.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's ecological evidence due to factual misapprehensions and accepted the municipality's evidence that the unauthorized development likely had an unacceptable negative impact on the environment and Species at Risk habitat.

The appellant appealed the Town of Georgina's comprehensive zoning by-law update, which rezoned their vacant property to Environmental Protection (EP) and Agricultural Protection (AP).

At the hearing, the unrepresented appellant expressed concerns that the zoning would prevent future development.

After the Town's planner explained that the zoning merely reflected the Official Plan and that any future development would require a rezoning application and an Environmental Impact Study, the appellant took no position and led no evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the Town's uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the by-law conforms to the Official Plan and provincial policies, and dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for the appeals of the City of Sarnia's Official Plan Amendment No. 3 (Development Area 2 Secondary Plan).

The order establishes the procedural rules, issues list, order of evidence, and key dates leading up to a 12-day video hearing scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicants concerning the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on October 20, 2025, for 20 days.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Avenue.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered a revised proposal for four new mixed-use buildings containing 1,649 new residential units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal conforms to the Official Plan, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until various preconditions are satisfied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard appeals regarding proposed Official Plan Amendments 49 and 56 for the Resort Village of Minett.

The parties reached a settlement on various aspects of the appeals, leaving one remaining issue regarding the maximum percentage of Resort-Related Dwelling Units permitted on RC3 lands.

After hearing expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the settled Official Plan Amendments 49 and 56.

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.

The claimant brought a proceeding against Metrolinx under subsection 26(b) of the Expropriations Act for the determination of compensation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal received an executed Consent to Dismiss the proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered the proceeding dismissed without costs.

The Tribunal received a request on consent of the parties to make a technical revision to a previously approved Zoning By-law Amendment.

The revision to Clause (O) relates to the use of vehicle parking spaces, enabling a maximum of three spaces to be used as resident parking.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the amendment of City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013.

The parties requested on consent to amend the procedural order to change the hearing start date from June 15, 2025, to November 24, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request and ordered the hearing to commence on the new date, with all other aspects of the procedural order remaining the same.

The City of Markham passed a by-law designating a property containing a one-storey brick dwelling as a heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owner appealed the designation to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal evaluated the property against the prescribed criteria and found that while it met the criterion for design or physical value as a modest Ontario Cottage style tradesman's dwelling, it did not meet the criteria for historical or contextual value.

Because a property must meet a minimum of two criteria to be eligible for designation, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the by-law repealed.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's enactment of an Interim Control By-law that restricted uses on its property while the City completed land use studies.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested that the appeal be scoped to the subject property and adjourned sine die.

The adjournment would allow the appellant's concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment application to proceed, which could potentially resolve the issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, scoped the appeal to the subject property, and adjourned the matter sine die, directing the parties to provide a status update within six months.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to permit a nine-storey mixed-use building with 56 residential units and ground-floor commercial space.

The requested variances included a reduced rear yard setback for a parking ramp wall and an increase in maximum building height from 15 metres to 30.1 metres.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, supports residential intensification and affordable housing, and satisfies the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a bulk water sales business.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered an amendment to the procedural order, extending the deadline to provide the Joint Case Document Book from February 21, 2025, to February 24, 2025.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the municipality following a successful appeal of the municipality's refusal of zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The applicant argued the municipality's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious because it failed to lead evidence supporting its refusal, filed its planner's witness statement late, and introduced a new issue not on the issues list.

Furthermore, the municipality sought to recover its own legal costs from the applicant pursuant to a Cost Acknowledgement Agreement.

The Tribunal found the municipality's conduct unreasonable and frivolous, noting its disregard for the procedural order and failure to justify the council's decision.

The Tribunal awarded costs to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,500.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit a driveway width of 7.5 metres, exceeding the maximum permitted width of 7.0 metres.

The applicant sought the variance to accommodate an additional vehicle and ensure safe access for residents with mobility issues.

The City opposed the variance, arguing it failed the four tests under the Planning Act and would negatively impact the streetscape.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the variance was minor, met the four tests, did not pose safety risks, and maintained sufficient permeable landscaping.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer two aggregate licences from the appellant to the respondent landowner after their extraction agreement expired.

The appellant objected, seeking $518,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licences, and the matter was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to direct financial compensation as a condition of a licence transfer under s. 18(8) of the Aggregate Resources Act.

The Tribunal held that resolving contractual disputes and claims for economic loss between a landowner and a licence holder is outside its mandate.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer of the licences to the respondent.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 40-storey mixed-use tower.

Following a public hearing and a prior decision withholding the final order pending satisfaction of pre-approval conditions, the Tribunal was notified that the conditions were met.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the zoning by-law, including provisions for a holding symbol.

The applicant appealed the County of Renfrew's refusal of an application for provisional consent to sever a vacant residential lot from a rural property.

The County denied the application because the applicant refused to provide a hydrogeological assessment and a noise impact study.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severance without the required studies was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, and did not conform to the County's Official Plan, which explicitly mandates these studies for lots under 1 hectare or within 250 metres of a highway.

The appeal was dismissed and provisional consent was denied.