Patrick John Harrington

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard motions regarding appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

Sheltering parties Castandgrey and Country sought to refuse the appellants' partial withdrawal of appeals, arguing the entire Elfrida Area should remain under consideration for urban expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the motions in part, ruling that while it would not refuse the scoping of issues, the full Elfrida Area potential urban boundary remains under appeal and the Ministry's modifications for non-appellant lands are not in force.

A separate motion by LIV Developments Ltd. for party status was denied as it did not advance the public interest and would result in a multiplicity of proceedings.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a draft plan of subdivision and a refusal to permit wetland relocation, the Tribunal granted Party status to the City of Hamilton and Participant status to several individuals in the Conservation Authorities Act appeal.

The Tribunal also ordered that the two appeals be heard together in a single phase, rather than consolidated, to ensure efficiency while avoiding prejudice to the parties.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal against the City of Thorold's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals, finding that their concerns aligned with the City's and they did not intend to call expert evidence.

A three-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Appellant brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed its appeal of the City of St. Catharines' Official Plan Amendment No. 26 in full, and sought a stay of the OPA.

The Appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated rules of natural justice, and made errors of law by dismissing the appeal in full when the responding parties had only sought partial dismissal.

The Tribunal found the Appellant failed to establish a convincing and compelling case under Rule 25.7 that the Tribunal made any of the enumerated errors.

The motion for review and request for a stay were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's calculation of cash-in-lieu of parkland fees for a proposed 98-unit subdivision, having paid $2,183,123.21 under protest.

The core dispute is whether the fee evaluation should include serviced and/or unserviced lands.

During a telephone conference call, the parties advised they were exploring settlement opportunities.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a written status update within six months.

The Town of Pelham adopted an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBLA) to regulate indoor cannabis and industrial hemp cultivation, primarily to address odour concerns.

Several cannabis producers appealed.

Prior to the hearing, Phoena withdrew its appeal, and Redecan reached a settlement with the Town, which the Tribunal approved as representing good planning.

Woodstock continued its appeal, arguing it should be recognized as an existing facility and granted a site-specific exception.

The Tribunal dismissed Woodstock's appeal, noting it had never formally filed an application and must pursue approvals through the standard process established by the new OPA.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals related to the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan.

The parties confirmed that a Phase 3 hearing was no longer necessary and scoped the remaining issues for a Phase 4 hearing.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List for the Phase 4 hearing, scheduled a six-week hearing for May 2023, and granted party status to Ibrans Developments Ltd. on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming hearing regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipal authority's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application seeks to permit the development of an 8-storey apartment building, condominium and townhouse units, and one semi-detached dwelling.

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

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the Region of Peel's Development Charges By-law No. 77-2020.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they are continuing negotiations to narrow the issues or achieve a full resolution.

The Tribunal noted that an Amended Procedural Order had previously been issued on consent, setting a new hearing date for November 28, 2022.

The parties were directed to contact the Tribunal if a further Case Management Conference or settlement hearing is required.

The applicant appealed the City of Waterloo's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a high-rise residential redevelopment.

The parties reached a settlement proposing two 24-storey towers and the removal of a heritage building, with community benefits provided in exchange for increased density.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and representing good planning.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to consider a proposed settlement of an appeal against the City of Thorold's Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The settlement proposed rezoning the subject lands from Environmental Protection Two to R1A.

Based on expert land use planning evidence that the boundary refinement was minor and supported by an Environmental Impact Study, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and in principle, subject to the submission of a revised draft Zoning By-law Amendment including a holding provision and conditions of approval.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use redevelopment.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted party status to a hospital and a conservation commission on consent, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to increase the maximum gross floor area and lot coverage for a home office addition to an island cottage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the requested variances and expansion requests met the tests under sections 45(1) and 45(2) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, concluding that the modest increases maintained the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were minor in nature, and would have no adverse visual or environmental impacts.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment to permit short-term vacation rentals.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and scheduled a four-day video hearing on the merits.

The Appellants appealed the Town of Caledon's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 8-storey residential condominium on a site within the Humber River Valley Corridor and the Bolton Heritage Conservation District.

The Town and TRCA brought a motion to strike portions of the Appellants' reply witness statements, which the Tribunal dismissed, noting the difference between pre-hearing disclosure and trial evidence.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that while the site is suitable for intensification and does not pose an unacceptable erosion hazard, the proposed development's scale, height, and massing fail to conserve the significant cultural heritage landscape.

The Tribunal declined to approve the proposed development but did not dismiss the appeal, allowing the Appellants to submit a revised, smaller-scale proposal.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a consent application to sever a residential property into three lots.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local Official Plans, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

Following a two-phase hearing regarding the Yonge & Bernard Key Development Area Secondary Plan, multiple parties brought motions for costs against North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC).

The moving parties alleged that NEC's counsel engaged in unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct, including refusing to scope issues, failing to call evidence after indicating an intention to do so, conducting improper cross-examinations, and repeatedly ignoring Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal agreed, finding NEC's conduct to be reprehensible and outrageous.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties on a full indemnity basis, totaling $202,890.63.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's new Official Plan, Official Plan Amendment 119, and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal approved a Master Procedural Order setting out a phased hearing plan and approved the Procedural Order for the Phase 1A hearing on agriculture issues, scheduling it for April 2023.

The appellant appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 26, which converted certain employment lands to alternative uses.

Several parties brought motions to dismiss the appeal under section 17(45) of the Planning Act, arguing that the appellant's issues were statute-barred because the notice of appeal failed to explain how the decision was inconsistent with or failed to conform to provincial plans, as required by section 17(37.1).

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the notice of appeal lacked the required explanations and that the appellant could not expand its appeal beyond the initial submission.

The Tribunal granted the motions and dismissed the appeal without a full hearing.