Patrick Gerald Duffy

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions to settle several appeals regarding site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment 59.

The settlements proposed expanding settlement area boundaries and converting employment lands to residential and commercial uses.

Sifton Properties Limited contested the settlements, arguing that a quantitative land needs assessment was required under the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 prior to approval.

The Tribunal found that the PPS 2024 removed the requirement for a municipal comprehensive review for boundary expansions, allowing for incremental expansions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and supportive of providing local housing options.

The City of Burlington requested a review of a Tribunal decision that refused to dismiss an appeal of the new City Official Plan.

The original decision held that the appeal survived the sale of the subject property because it was 'tied to the land', and directed the City to contact the new owner.

The Tribunal Chair granted the request for review, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Chair held that while Tribunal decisions regarding permitted land uses run with the land (in rem), the right to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal is a personal right (in personam).

The original decision was varied to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The City of Brampton brought a motion for directions seeking approval of modifications to its new Official Plan to resolve multiple appeals.

The Tribunal found that the proposed modifications and unmodified policies had regard for matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Greenbelt Plan and the Region of Peel Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion, approving the modifications and unmodified policies without prejudice to the remaining outstanding appeals.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a high-density mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendments consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the submission of the final zoning by-law and subdivision conditions.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 59.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement, finding that the proposed policy revisions regarding residential density and Special Policy Area #29-A are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conform to the County Official Plan, and represent good land use planning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a corrective order under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend a previous Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The correction fixed a typographical error in the spelling of counsel's name for Home Depot of Canada Inc. from Noah Jorden to Noah Gordon.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for Major Transit Station Areas and the new City Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to 201 County Court Brampton Holdings Inc. on consent.

The parties reported progress in mediation and proposed a written settlement motion once a draft order is finalized.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2026 to address outstanding matters and potential consolidation of the appeals.

The Tribunal convened a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment pertaining to the Avenues Policy Framework.

The parties requested additional time to engage in without prejudice communications to refine the issues and finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference and imposed a deadline for the submission of the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Regional Municipality of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against OPA 119 and ZBL 418.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Canadian National Railway Company, substituted Inaria Burlington Inc. for Burlington Healthcare Centre Inc., and scheduled a motion hearing to consider dismissing certain appeals and addressing potential settlements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 778 (Avenues Policy Framework).

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association and Group.

On consent, the Tribunal confirmed that the unappealed portions of OPA 778 came into force and effect on March 14, 2025, pursuant to s. 17(27) of the Planning Act.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in its previous decision dated July 22, 2025.

The amendments included replacing a paragraph regarding a party's position on a technical error and correcting the spelling of counsel's name.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted requests from several parties to withdraw their appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a request by Losani Homes to consolidate its site-specific appeals of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law with its appeals of privately-initiated applications for the same properties, finding it would be an effective and efficient use of resources.

Further Case Management Conference dates were scheduled.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 13 appeals against three Town of Oakville Official Plan Amendments (OPAs 68, 332, and 333) adopted in response to Bill 97.

The Town advised that it is undertaking a process to consider modifications to the OPAs, which may render the appeals moot.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 9, 2026, to allow the Town time to complete its process and directed the Town to provide a status update prior to the hearing.

The Applicant sought leave to appeal the Director's decision to issue an Environmental Compliance Approval for air and noise to a meat processing facility.

The Applicant argued that the facility's noise emissions exceeded guidelines and that the eight-year timeline for implementing noise mitigation measures was unreasonable.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had standing to seek leave to appeal based on his past involvement with an adjacent residential subdivision.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the Applicant failed to satisfy the two-part test under section 41 of the Environmental Bill of Rights.

The Director's decision was reasonable, and the Applicant provided no compelling evidence that the decision could result in significant harm to the environment.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 778, which updates the Avenues Policy Framework.

The Tribunal granted party status to 430 Royal York GP Inc. to scope the appeals concerning its property.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a participant status request, receive status updates, and potentially hear scoping motions.