Paula Lombardi

The appellant appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 59 (OPA 59) by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The parties reached a settlement to modify OPA 59 to reflect a prior site-specific approval (OPA 46) granted by the Tribunal for the appellant's lands, which permitted medium density residential development.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed modification was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlement and modified OPA 59 accordingly.

The appellant, 2708959 Ontario Inc., appealed the dismissal of its application regarding four structures encroaching on a municipal road allowance in Stratford.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge’s finding that the City of Stratford had not expressly or tacitly approved the encroachments when the building and site plan drawings were approved in 1998.

The court found that the onus was on the original proponent and their advisors to bring the encroachments to the City’s attention, and that approval of site plans and occupancy permits did not constitute approval of the encroachments.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the City.

The applicants, Paul and Roberta Bennett, sought a declaration of a right-of-way over property owned by the respondents, Kimberly Chadwick and Cressview Lakes Corporation, and an order requiring removal of a fence allegedly impeding their access.

The dispute centered on the location of the right-of-way and whether the applicants’ access was impeded.

The court found that the original right-of-way was over Lot 45 (not Lot 46), as established by a 1961 resolution and a 1974 agreement, and that the fence did not impede access.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming three-day hearing regarding a site plan appeal for an 11-unit townhouse development in the Township of Essa.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and timetable for the exchange of witness statements and other materials leading up to the hearing scheduled for August 18, 2025.

The appellant appealed under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act due to the Township's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for an 11-unit townhouse development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing on the merits for August 2025 and a further Case Management Conference for June 2025 to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicants appealed the Township's non-decision regarding a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to facilitate a 40-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to two adjacent property owners.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the issue of costs following an appeal between the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc.

The court determined that there would be no costs of the appeal, as the determinative issue was not raised before the Divisional Court.

The costs previously ordered by the Divisional Court were set aside.

The applicant appealed conditions 4 and 5 of a provisional consent for a boundary adjustment, which required the removal of an existing driveway access to Highway 3.

The Tribunal found that the driveway had existed since the 1930s and was legally grandfathered under the Ministry of Transportation's Highway Corridor Management Manual.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, amending condition 4 and deleting condition 5, confirming the existing driveway may continue as a legal entrance.

The appellant municipality appealed a Divisional Court order that quashed an Ontario Land Tribunal decision assuming jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a municipal servicing agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that the Tribunal's decision was interlocutory, as it only assumed jurisdiction on a prima facie basis and deferred the final determination of forum to the Superior Court.

Because the Ontario Land Tribunal Act only permits appeals of final decisions, the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order was restored.

The City of Sarnia appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a residential townhouse development on lands in the Village of Point Edward.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a phased development utilizing holding provisions to address scale thresholds, servicing, and noise mitigation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 77-unit residential development.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated March 17, 2022.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Special Zoning Map 14-17 in Attachment 1 of the original decision was deleted and replaced with an amended map.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by the appellant municipality against a zoning by-law amendment intended to permit a residential townhouse development on the Marina Lands in the respondent municipality.

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

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of conditions of draft plan approval for a vacant land condominium.

The municipality indicated its intent to bring a motion disputing the standing of the appeal due to the lapsing of the draft plan extension.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to hear the municipality's motion, while the parties continue discussions to potentially resolve the appeal.

The Applicant appealed the City of London's refusal of a Zoning By-law amendment to permit a four-storey apartment building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted Party status on consent to two neighbouring property owners.

The parties requested a third Case Management Conference to pursue settlement discussions based on an agreed Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled the third Case Management Conference for January 2025.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment within the statutory timeframe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the County of Huron on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day merit hearing.

The plaintiffs sought damages and declarations regarding environmental contamination at 65 Heward Avenue.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiffs' amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, arguing that the plaintiffs knew of the contamination upon purchase, the limitation period had expired, and the claim lacked sufficient particulars for negligence, strict liability, and statutory claims under the Environmental Protection Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were not barred by delay or pleading over, the plaintiffs' knowledge of contamination was not fatal, the limitation period issue required evidence, and the claim provided sufficient particulars for all causes of action, including novel applications of strict liability.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical omission in its July 26, 2024 decision.

The amendment adds Schedule A, which contains the Procedural Order governing the organization and schedule of the upcoming hearing for appeals related to an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and a Heritage Alteration Application for properties in the Town of Kingsville.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by Centre West Management Ltd. against the Township of Essa's refusal or neglect to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of 10 townhomes.

The hearing is scheduled for two days commencing January 13, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of London's refusal to approve a Zoning By-law Amendment for a property on Commissioners Road West.

An abutting property owner requested party status, which the Tribunal deferred to a second CMC to allow parties to review the written request.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second CMC.

The appellant appealed the City of Stratford Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application seeking to increase the maximum permitted height for a new detached dwelling from 10.0 metres to 11.39 metres.

The variance was requested to accommodate an elevator shaft hidden within the roofline.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found, based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence supported by the City, that the requested variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized subject to conditions.