Paula Lombardi

The applicant corporation sought various forms of relief regarding building encroachments on a municipal road allowance in Stratford, Ontario, including a concrete retaining wall, a wooden access ramp, a concrete step, and a single-car parking space.

The applicant argued the encroachments were authorized, constituted legal non-conforming uses, or that the municipality was estopped from requiring an encroachment agreement.

The court dismissed the application, finding no explicit or tacit authorization for the encroachments, that they did not meet the criteria for legal non-conforming use, and that the elements for proprietary estoppel against the municipality were not established.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The parties reported substantial progress in settlement discussions and requested a partial Settlement Hearing.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a partial Settlement Hearing for January 25, 2024.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

The parties reported ongoing settlement discussions and requested a further CMC to finalize an action plan and settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 2024.

The applicant brought a motion for costs against the City of London following a successful appeal of a minor variance refusal.

The applicant argued the City's conduct was unreasonable for defending the refusal without expert planning evidence and taking an untenable position.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's motion, finding the City's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The Tribunal granted the City's request for costs of the motion, ordering the applicant to pay $2,000 plus HST, as the applicant's motion materials were deficient and failed to properly apply the legislative test for costs.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment adopted by the municipality to permit a 95-unit affordable rental residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement that modified the by-law to include a holding symbol, limit the development to 70 units, and prescribe specific development standards.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised by-law consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning, and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the conditions of a draft plan of subdivision imposed by the approval authority.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal addressed a concern regarding the potential lapsing of the draft plan conditions.

The approval authority confirmed it had extended the draft plan approval for two years, resolving the lapsing issue.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a seven-day video hearing for the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to a five-day hearing scheduled to commence on February 5, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicant regarding an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit the redevelopment of an existing cookie factory with mixed-use housing in the City of London.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law intended to permit a 95-unit affordable rental residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicant, Indwell Community Homes, and participant status to three individuals.

As the self-represented appellant was unprepared to proceed with a draft Procedural Order, the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the appellant to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Sarnia's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal adjourned the appeals by the Bright Grove Appellants sine die, pending the outcome of a proposed new Provincial Policy Statement regarding settlement area expansions.

The Tribunal also scheduled a two-day merit hearing for the appeals by the Short-Term Rental Appellants and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the passing of Official Plan Amendment No. 732 and a related zoning by-law which established an Environmentally Significant Area boundary.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties jointly requested a second CMC because the City was in the process of passing a new OPA to amend its 2016 Official Plan, which the appellant expected to appeal and consolidate with the current matter.

The Tribunal granted the request, scheduled a second CMC, and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order.

The Appellants appealed a Director's Order issued under the Environmental Protection Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing on the merits because they had made progress in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to receive updates and potentially schedule a settlement hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by a ratepayers association against the municipality's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendment permits a 10-unit cluster townhouse development.

The Tribunal corrected the applicant's name, dismissed 13 participant status requests due to a misunderstanding, and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of London's passing of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law.

The appeals relate to the proposed redevelopment of a former industrial brownfield property into a mixed-use development including residential units, a long-term care facility, and seniors' apartments.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for February 2024.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to include residential provisions in a zoning by-law amendment and its failure to make a decision within statutory timeframes under the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the appellant withdrew its appeal under s. 34(11) and proceeded solely under s. 34(19).

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the procedural order and issues list submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal asserting jurisdiction over a dispute regarding a water and sewage servicing agreement with the respondent municipality.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the agreement's termination clause by failing to apply a pragmatic and common-sense approach and by considering subsequent conduct without finding ambiguity.

Because the agreement had validly terminated, the statutory basis for the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Municipal Act was removed.

The appeal was granted and the Tribunal's order was quashed.

The moving parties (the Fifes) sought costs of $7,457.96 against the self-represented appellant, Mels, following the dismissal of his minor variance appeal.

The Fifes argued that Mels acted unreasonably by failing to retain experts or call evidence at the hearing, forcing them to incur costs to defend the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Mels relied on supportive municipal staff reports and participated respectfully to the best of his abilities.

The Tribunal held that a self-represented party is not required to match the resources or expert evidence of opposing parties, and his conduct did not meet the threshold of frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith behaviour under Rule 23.9.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit an autobody repair establishment.

The parties presented a finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the retention of an existing front yard driveway and parking space at a residential property.

The City argued the driveway conflicted with Official Plan policies and a recent site-specific zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that the driveway had existed for over 35 years without issue, was consistent with neighbourhood character, and satisfied the four tests for minor variances under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Following the dismissal of an appeal against an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for an affordable housing development, the applicant brought a motion for costs against the appellant.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct was unreasonable and frivolous, as he initiated and sustained an appeal without merit, failed to familiarize himself with applicable legislation and rules, and presented no objective evidence.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to award costs to the applicant, fixed at $9,000.00.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks concerning the deposit and removal of waste at a property.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties presented a consensus Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits.