Patrick John Harrington

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a decision issued on July 22, 2024.

The amendment clarified the upcoming hearing event information regarding a Case Management Conference and a Merit Hearing scheduled for November 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a multi-storey residential development on lands located within the Humber River Valley.

In this Phase 1 hearing, the sole issue was whether the subject lands are developable given their natural heritage and hazard constraints, including significant woodlands, significant valleylands, significant wildlife habitat, and flood hazards.

The Tribunal found that while the lands contain these significant features, they are developable in principle, as the Provincial Policy Statement permits development if it can be demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.

The appeals were ordered to advance to a Phase 2 hearing to evaluate the specific proposed development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The City provided status updates on Phase 3, 4, and 7 appeals, as well as various topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting several withdrawals and ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal ordered a further Case Management Conference for November 2024 and scheduled a three-day merit hearing for a specific site appeal.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion at a Case Management Conference seeking to resolve several site-specific appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved site-specific amendments for properties owned by Dufferin Vistas Ltd., Condor Properties Ltd., and Armland Management Inc. The Tribunal also provided directions for other appeals to be considered at future Case Management Conferences and acknowledged the withdrawal of certain appeals.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a reduced density of six single-detached dwellings, eliminating the need for the Official Plan Amendment.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision, finding they represent good planning, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to applicable official plans.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of zoning by-law amendments and a proposed plan of subdivision in the City of Thorold, the Ontario Land Tribunal deferred scheduling a hearing on the merits.

Instead, the Tribunal scheduled a one-day motion hearing to determine a contested request for party status in the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Zoning By-law Amendments and a proposed Plan of Subdivision in the City of Thorold.

The Tribunal deferred scheduling a hearing on the merits due to an outstanding request for party status by Rudanco Hospitality Corporation, which the Applicant opposed.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day motion hearing to determine the party status request.

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit the redevelopment of portions of an existing golf course into residential lots and a mid-rise or townhouse block.

The City and local residents' associations opposed the development, arguing it would result in the loss of open space, remove mature trees, and undermine the character of the established community.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence that the development is compatible with the existing neighbourhood, appropriately manages stormwater and natural hazards, and provides needed housing through intensification.

At a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision in the Town of Oakville, the Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities on consent.

The Tribunal declined a request by the appellants to consolidate the site-specific appeals and set hearing dates, finding it premature given potential upcoming legislative changes to the Planning Act.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application, the parties advised they were close to a settlement.

The parties requested a three-day merit hearing be scheduled in the fall of 2024 out of an abundance of caution, pending a decision on a neighbouring property's application.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled the merit hearing for September 2024.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's Official Plan Amendment 270, which created a process for assessing Ministerial Zoning Order and Community Infrastructure and Housing Accelerator requests.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment to a second CMC because pending provincial legislation (Bill 185) and a newly adopted Town Official Plan could affect the appeal.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a second CMC.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision, the parties advised that the Official Plan Amendment appeal was likely to settle imminently.

The Tribunal ordered that the Official Plan Amendment appeal proceed by way of a written settlement motion.

The Tribunal also set procedural deadlines for the remaining appeals, including the filing of a draft Procedural Order and the scheduling of a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding three appeals related to Official Plan Amendment 254 and site-specific zoning by-law amendments in the City of Brampton.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities and deferred the decision on whether to hear the appeals together to a second CMC, directing the parties to refine their issues lists and propose a hearing structure.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

The applications seek to permit a residential development consisting of eight multiple dwellings and townhouses.

The procedural order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, and deadlines for the exchange of evidence.

The appellants appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the City of Brampton to permit temporary truck and trailer parking.

Following a case management conference, the appellants withdrew their appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accordingly dismissed the appeal.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision for which the Town Council failed to make decisions.

The Tribunal ordered that the matters be heard together.

The Tribunal also granted party and participant status to several entities without objection.

Future Case Management Conferences and a 19-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for an eight-storey mixed-use building.

While the parties agreed on most conditions, they disputed a Visual Impact Assessment condition, which the Tribunal found reasonable.

The central issue was the effect of the newly enacted Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 (OPAA), which retroactively revoked the Ministerially Approved official plan that had facilitated the development's height and density.

The Tribunal held that s. 3(2) of the OPAA imposes a mandatory official plan conformity test on site plan appeals, and that the deemed conformity provision in s. 24(4) of the Planning Act could not save the site plan because the underlying official plan was deemed never to have existed.

Finding the site plan did not conform to the retroactively reinstated official plan, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development consisting of multiple dwellings and townhouses.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised that discussions and mediation were ongoing.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on March 10, 2025, and directed the parties to submit a final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The City of Burlington brought an uncontested motion for partial approval of its new Official Plan.

The motion sought approval for policies that were either not subject to appeal or modified to reflect existing site-specific approvals from the 1997 Official Plan.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the City's Senior Planner, the Tribunal found that the policies satisfied all statutory tests, were consistent with provincial policies, represented good planning, and were in the public interest.

The motion for partial approval was granted.

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make decisions on their respective applications for Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision to permit residential developments.

Prior to the hearing, both applicants reached settlements with the Town.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, based on uncontested expert planning evidence, found that the proposed developments have regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the applicable growth and official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments to implement the settlements.