Patrick Maloney

The appellant appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a public inspection centre as a home industry on agricultural lands.

The parties reached a settlement to allow the variance subject to conditions limiting the use to the inspection of fire trucks and prohibiting repairs.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The applicants brought an application to the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board regarding noise disturbances from propane cannons used for bird control at the respondent's vineyard.

The Board determined that the use of propane cannons consistent with OMAFA guidelines is a normal farm practice, but modified the practice pursuant to s. 5(4)(c) of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998.

On consent, the Board ordered the respondent to adhere to specific voluntary restrictions regarding the placement, volume, rotation, and frequency of the cannons in the vineyard.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision denying certain minor variances required to facilitate the severance of a lot and the construction of a new dwelling and carriage house in a Heritage Conservation District.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement involving revised building elevations and driveway configurations.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amended variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and authorized them subject to conditions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed mixed-use development, a neighbouring industrial company requested party status.

The applicant objected, arguing that a stand-alone motion was required and that the company's involvement would duplicate issues raised by other industrial parties.

The Tribunal found that a stand-alone motion was unnecessary and granted the company party status, noting its unique interests as a neighbouring industry and the need for its presence to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The appellant sought minor variances to permit a 117.0 square metre cargo container for storage on a residential property.

The municipality did not oppose the appeal after the appellant agreed to relocate the container to screen it from view.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the variances met the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the large lot size and the proposed screening mitigated any adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to a setback condition.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a residential lot to create two new single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the City passed a new comprehensive zoning by-law, and the parties reached a settlement amending the lot lines to comply with the new by-law without requiring minor variances.

An adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the settlement, arguing the smaller lots were incompatible with the neighbourhood and premature pending a municipal drainage study.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, finding the amended proposal was compatible with the new zoning standards and that stormwater management concerns were adequately addressed through the agreed conditions of consent.

The applicant received approval from the Committee of Adjustment to sever and create one additional residential lot.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing appealed the decision under subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, raising concerns about flooding, erosion hazards, and natural heritage impacts.

The parties reached a settlement proposing an additional condition requiring the applicant to obtain a permit from the Long Point Region Conservation Authority prior to the lot being created.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence, found the application met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and allowed the appeal in part to approve the provisional consent subject to the revised conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021.

The parties requested an adjournment to finalize settlements, but the Tribunal refused, noting the appeals had languished for nearly three years.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing for June 2025, allowing the parties time to settle beforehand if possible, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. appealed the City of Niagara Falls' refusal to enact a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a five-storey, 74-unit apartment building.

The City and the applicant reached a settlement, but a residents' group opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the neighbourhood and not transit-supportive.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is within a strategic growth area, conforms to local and provincial planning policies, and employs appropriate design measures to ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent applications to permit the severance of a rural property into three residential lots.

The central issue was whether the proposed lots could be adequately serviced by private water cisterns, given the lack of municipal water and inadequate groundwater for wells.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's experts, finding that cisterns are a viable and common water source in the area and that the proposed intensification is compatible with the surrounding rural character.

The appeals were allowed and the applications approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 144-2021.

One appellant withdrew their appeal, and another reached a settlement with the Town.

The Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing for the resolved appeal and a further Case Management Conference for the remaining appellants, who are seeking to amend their development applications.

The City of St. Catharines appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent and minor variances that would facilitate a lot boundary adjustment to construct a new detached dwelling and septic system on lands designated for agricultural use.

The applicants argued the adjustment was minor and for technical reasons.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed boundary adjustment was not minor, took significantly more land than necessary for the technical requirement of a new septic system, and failed to protect agricultural resources in conformity with the applicable official plans and the Greenbelt Plan.

At a Case Management Conference concerning appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 144-2021, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacating the August 2024 hearing dates and scheduling a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by BayCity Custom Homes against the Township of Ramara's refusal of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent applications.

The applications seek to permit two new residential lots via severances and a reduction in minimum lot frontage.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a four-day merit hearing to commence by video on July 9, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the respondent's refusal to approve a zoning by-law amendment.

The amendment sought to permit a five-storey residential building with 74 units.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, filing dates, and the issues list.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Dorchester Property Holdings Inc. against the City of Niagara Falls' refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 5-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to Niagara Stronger Together Incorporated on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a scoped draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled an 8-day hearing on the merits for October 2024.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize minor variances to facilitate the construction of a new two-storey single-detached dwelling.

The proposed dwelling would replace an existing legal non-conforming one-storey dwelling.

The Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as the proposed dwelling was compatible with the neighbourhood and the variances were minor and desirable.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant, Joseph Scott Hill, appealed his conviction and sentence for destroying or harvesting prescribed trees contrary to a Haldimand County by-law.

The appeal challenged the trial Justice of the Peace's interpretation of the "own use" exception and alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appellant also sought a reduced fine and restitution.

The court dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the "own use" interpretation and no factual basis for the ineffective assistance claim.

The court also dismissed the respondent's request for costs, deeming the appeal not to meet the high threshold for a cost award.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of official plan and zoning by-law amendments that would facilitate a medical clinic and professional office development on a property in Virgil.

The appellant, who operates a nearby medical centre, argued the amendments were inconsistent with provincial policies, would remove needed residential lands, and would negatively impact existing commercial areas.

The Tribunal found the proposed instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the Region's Official Plan, and conformed with the Town's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's market impact study, finding a need for the proposed medical uses and no evidence that the development would cause blight or significant adverse market impacts.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the non-decision of the City of Thorold's Committee of Adjustment regarding a minor variance application to facilitate a 6-storey, 40-unit apartment building.

The City argued that a rezoning application was required and that a heritage impact assessment had to be completed before the variances could be considered.

The Tribunal rejected the City's arguments, finding that the property was already appropriately zoned for apartment dwellings and that the heritage impact assessment could be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage.

Relying on the planning evidence of the applicant's planner and the former City staff planner, the Tribunal found that the four requested variances met the tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and authorized them.