Paula Lombardi

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 10-unit townhome development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four neighbouring residents who submitted written requests.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing for January 2025 and directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference regarding site-specific and town-wide Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to King Devco Inc. for the town-wide appeals.

Participant status was also granted to two individuals without objection.

A 10-day hearing of the merits was scheduled to commence on December 2, 2024.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment, which excluded the appellant's lands from a settlement boundary expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to another interested party.

The Tribunal also scheduled a four-day hearing of the merits for January 2025 and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order and issues list.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 59 adopted by the County of Middlesex.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order submitted on consent by the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing for phase one issues and a 5-day hearing for phase two issues, and directed the parties to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to Huron Grain Processing Inc. on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that six related appeals concerning official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, a draft plan of subdivision, and a consent application be consolidated and heard together.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by two appellants against the Municipality of Thames Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 27.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a representative of an abutting landowner.

The Tribunal noted a settlement in principle with one appellant and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing for the remaining appeal in February 2025.

The applicants sought an order for the removal of a gate obstructing a shared right-of-way and an injunction against further interference.

The respondents argued the gate was for security and brought a motion to strike parts of the applicants' affidavits.

The court granted the applicants' motion to strike scandalous allegations from the respondents' affidavits, finding them irrelevant.

The court then determined that the gate constituted a substantial interference with the applicants' right-of-way, particularly for vehicular access, and rejected the respondents' security justification as insufficient.

The court ordered the gate's removal and restrained the respondents from further obstruction.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a consent application to sever a surplus farm dwelling following a farm consolidation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the severance would not result in the loss of active agricultural lands and met all criteria under the Provincial Policy Statement and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions agreed upon in minutes of settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment #59.

The Tribunal granted party status to Comgord Limited on consent.

The parties requested more time to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the merit hearing until the procedural documents are approved and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for June 6, 2024.

The applicants sought a declaration of a prescriptive easement or an ancillary right to park on a private road (Hunters Road) owned by the respondent, which they used to access their cottages.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to establish the elements for a prescriptive easement, specifically that their use was "peaceful" and "uninterrupted" for the requisite 20-year period due to the respondent's consistent objections.

Furthermore, the court found that parking on Hunters Road was not "reasonably necessary" for the enjoyment of their properties, as their respective title documents provided for alternative parking solutions.

The Township of Malahide brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of two appellants regarding the Tate Drain.

After the appeal of those appellants was dismissed, the Tribunal reviewed the Minutes of Settlement signed by the remaining parties.

Finding the settlement proper under section 51 of the Drainage Act, the Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement and ordered the Township to amend the provisional by-law accordingly.

The Township of Malahide brought a motion to dismiss the appeal of Ken and Robert J. Jones regarding the Tate Drain.

The appellants failed to attend several pre-hearing conferences and the peremptory motion hearing, and did not file responding materials.

The Tribunal found the appeal seemingly abandoned and dismissed it as frivolous under Rules 33.01 and 33.06 of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The appellant appealed the failure of the municipality and county to make decisions on a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision, as well as the passage of a comprehensive Zoning By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting a proposed residential development of 522-714 units.

The Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Thames Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 27 under section 17(36) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested additional time to scope the issues and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for May 24, 2024, and directed the parties to file the draft Procedural Order and Issues List by May 10, 2024.

This decision arises from the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment 59.

The Tribunal granted party status to several non-appellant property owners who demonstrated genuine land use planning concerns.

The parties were directed to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance of the second Case Management Conference, which was scheduled for May 8, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to a 7-day hearing regarding a zoning by-law amendment appeal.

The amendment seeks to permit an autobody repair establishment on agricultural lands in the Municipality of South Bruce.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by McCormick Village Inc. concerning the redevelopment of the former McCormick Cookie Factory.

The Tribunal consolidated a new appeal regarding a draft plan of subdivision with the existing appeals concerning an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

A revised Procedural Order and Issues List were approved on consent, and a four-day merit hearing was scheduled.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant concerning the redevelopment of a former cookie factory.

The Tribunal consolidated a new appeal regarding a draft plan of subdivision with the existing appeals concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

A revised Procedural Order and Issues List were approved on consent, and a four-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal considered a request for partial approval of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (OPA 79), which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

Following mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resulting in modifications to OPA 79.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified OPA 79 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and partially approved the modified OPA 79, while preserving the rights of the remaining appellants for a future merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of London's Official Plan Amendment No. 732 and Zoning By-law No. Z.-1-212925, which sought to establish an Environmentally Significant Area boundary on the subject lands.

The parties reached a joint settlement to revert the lands to their pre-amendment 'Neighbourhoods' designation and 'Urban Reserve UR3' zoning, while identifying an 'unevaluated vegetation patch' to ensure future environmental studies are conducted prior to development.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and biological evidence, finding the settlement represents good planning and maintains due regard for environmental concerns.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.