Paula Boutis

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Town of Caledon's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 285 and Official Plan Amendment No. 2, which establish the Wildfield Village Secondary Plan.

The parties reported ongoing discussions to narrow the issues but had not yet finalized a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 16, 2026, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order in advance.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a property to create a new residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the Committee of Adjustment conditionally approved a related minor variance.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that a plan of subdivision was not necessary and that the proposed consent was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Town of Caledon's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 285 and Official Plan Amendment No. 2, which establish the Wildfield Village Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to Global Properties Inc. and related entities, and participant status to the Peel District School Board.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Manors of Belfountain Corp. appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision, while the Town and a community organization appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for the same residential project.

The Tribunal considered extensive expert evidence on hydrogeology, stormwater management, and natural heritage, particularly concerning potential impacts on local groundwater, private wells, and sensitive Brook Trout habitat.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the proposed phased development, supported by advanced wastewater treatment and rigorous monitoring conditions, would not cause negative environmental impacts.

The Tribunal confirmed the development permit and approved the draft plan of subdivision in principle, subject to agreed conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Caledon's decision to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 285.

The Tribunal granted party status to Global Properties Inc. and related entities, and participant status to the Peel District School Board.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 6, 2026.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that allowed the withdrawal of a draft plan of subdivision appeal by a neighboring developer.

The applicant argued that the withdrawal, which occurred on the eve of the hearing, breached its right to procedural fairness by preventing it from arguing for a cost-sharing condition.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, finding that the issue of procedural fairness is a question of law that should be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism requiring leave under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

In the alternative, the court found no breach of procedural fairness, as the withdrawal of the appeal was expressly contemplated by the Planning Act and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to compel private parties to enter into a cost-sharing agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to grant a consent to sever a property into two lots, each to be serviced by an advanced treatment septic system.

The City argued that its Hydrogeological Guidelines prohibited the use of advanced treatment systems to justify undersized lots due to concerns over long-term performance and enforcement.

The Tribunal found that the Guidelines did not form part of the Official Plan and were merely an interpretive tool.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that advanced treatment systems are reliable and that adequate monitoring and enforcement mechanisms exist, such as consent agreements registered on title.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent granted subject to conditions, including a monitoring agreement and financial securities.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1685078 Ontario Inc. against the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The parties presented a draft Procedural Order as settlement discussions were ongoing but unresolved.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to consolidate its appeal of a draft plan of subdivision under the Planning Act with appeals of a development permit under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

The Tribunal found that the statutory requirements for consolidation under section 21 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act were met.

The Tribunal also determined that in a consolidated hearing, it has the authority to stand in the shoes of the Minister to make any decision that could be made after the hearing.

The undisputed motion for a consolidated hearing was granted.

The applicant appealed the Town of Caledon Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit the construction of a single-detached dwelling on a property zoned for an accessory dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement supporting the variance subject to conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposal met the four tests for a minor variance under the Planning Act and authorized the variance subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a stacked townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal of 22 units in three four-storey townhouse blocks.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to give effect to the settlement.

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.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential redevelopment consisting of single detached dwellings, street townhouses, and condominium townhouses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local official plans, and representative of good planning.

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

The Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 975-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 13 local residents without objection.

A 10-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for September 2024, and a procedural order was issued to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timelines.

The applications seek to permit a high-rise mixed-use residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 7-day hearing on the merits.

This was the first Case Management Conference concerning an appeal against the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for properties on Sulphur Springs Road.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two abutting property owners who raised concerns about drainage, tree preservation, and construction impacts.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2024.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for an appeal concerning the City of Hamilton's valuation of land for cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication.

The parties discussed outstanding issues regarding the draft Procedural Order and the applicable law.

The Tribunal directed the City to finalize the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to review it before setting a date for the merits hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton'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.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested a second CMC to allow time to finalize the issues in dispute or reach a settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a second CMC.

The applicant appealed the Township of King's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 28-unit single detached residential development.

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

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with applicable provincial and municipal plans, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the draft plan and zoning by-law amendments in principle, with the final order withheld pending satisfaction of specified conditions.

At a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township's failure to make decisions on zoning and subdivision applications, the Tribunal was advised that a settlement in principle had been reached between the statutory parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC, with directions that it be converted to a written hearing if a full settlement is finalized with the remaining parties.