Paula Lombardi

The Unity Project for Relief of Homelessness appealed the City of London's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a 24-storey mixed-use development.

The appellant argued that the density bonusing agreement, which provided 13 affordable housing units in exchange for increased height and density, was insufficient and did not meet Official Plan targets.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the development was compatible with the surrounding area, optimized existing infrastructure, and that the negotiated affordable housing contribution advanced the public interest and conformed to the applicable planning policies.

The appellants appealed their Outlet Liability assessment under the Drainage Act for the Komoka Drainage Works.

They argued the drainage works should be funded entirely by the municipality's Stormwater Management levy or that their assessment should be reduced due to an inappropriate equivalent factor applied to their agricultural land.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' properties were not in the Settlement area and did not pay into the Stormwater levy.

The Tribunal also found the engineer's use of a 1.0 factor for agricultural lands was fair and reasonable, and that the assessment was calculated correctly using the modified Todgham method.

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.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence jointly presented by the parties, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal had regard for provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the refusal of a minor variance to permit the construction of a single detached dwelling with a reduced Minimum Distance Separation from an adjacent farming operation.

The adjacent farm owners brought a motion seeking party status and a short adjournment of the hearing to allow their counsel to attend.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent and granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the farm owners in proceeding unrepresented outweighed the prejudice of a short delay to the applicant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Architectural Conservancy of Ontario against the City of London's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 40-storey mixed-use development on a site containing heritage buildings.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and organizations, and scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits.

The applicants sought consent to sever and merge properties, along with an unopened municipal road allowance, to create three non-farm residential lots in a prime agricultural area.

The County approved the applications despite staff recommending denial.

The appellant appealed the approval to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed creation of non-farm residential lots in an agricultural area conflicted with the Provincial Policy Statement and the applicable Official Plans, which protect agricultural lands.

The Tribunal refused to authorize the provisional consent.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by a local resident against the City's enactment of a Zoning By-law Amendment and approval of a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties disagreed on the extent of the issues raised by the appellant.

The Tribunal approved a Procedural Order and Issues List that limited the appeal to the narrow issue set out in the original Notice of Appeal, finding that allowing new issues would be tantamount to extending the appeal period.

A three-day video hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Unity Project for Relief of Homelessness against a zoning by-law amendment granted by the City of London for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to four entities on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 9-day hearing to commence on March 1, 2022.

The appellants appealed the Municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to convert an existing single detached dwelling into a four-unit dwelling and a detached garage into a single dwelling unit.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Chatham-Kent Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning and engineering evidence that the proposal represents an efficient use of land, contributes to a mix of housing options, and maintains the existing character of the neighbourhood without adverse impacts.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision authorizing six minor variances to permit a rear addition and two-car garage on a residential property in London.

The appellant argued the variances for rear yard setback, lot coverage, and building depth were not minor and would cause a loss of privacy and usable amenity space.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, finding that the uniquely small lot justified the variances and that the integrated addition was in keeping with the neighbourhood character and Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Egg Farmers of Ontario denying a request to reverse the cancellation of Quota Session QT-3-2018.

After hearing the evidence of the appellants, their counsel advised the Tribunal that all appellants wished to withdraw their appeals.

The appeals were withdrawn and no costs were sought.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the municipality's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed residential development.

A local resident requested party status, which the Tribunal deferred until the appellant's issues are fully identified, noting that non-appellants must shelter under an appellant's issues.

The Tribunal directed the preparation of a Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a three-day video hearing.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister's decision not to post an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) application for a proposed trailer park's sewage works on the Environmental Registry for public comment.

The Minister relied on s. 32(1)(a) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, which exempts proposals from posting if they are a step towards implementing a project approved by a tribunal after affording an opportunity for public participation.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found that the Minister's decision was reasonable, as the prior Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the trailer park development provided a sufficient opportunity for public participation concerning the sewage works.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision by the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) removing them from the New Producer Program (NPP) queue.

The DFO determined the appellants were ineligible because the husband held voting shares in his parents' dairy corporation, making him an existing producer under the Quota Policy.

The appellants argued the shareholding was minimal and they made an honest mistake on the application.

The Tribunal found the husband was a producer under the policy and that the appellants' mistake did not constitute unique or exceptional circumstances warranting an exemption.

The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction to award damages.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants requested a review of an April 2020 Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal regarding the Egg Farmers of Ontario's pullet leasing policies.

The appellants alleged ten material errors of fact and law in the original decision, primarily concerning the Tribunal's findings on lease fees, market demand, and whether the policies penalized new entrants.

The Vice-Chair found no material errors of fact or law in the original decision and denied the request for review.

The appellants, who are pullet and egg producers, appealed decisions of the Egg Farmers of Ontario (EFO) regarding policies and procedures for leasing pullet quota.

The appellants challenged the May 2018 and January 2019 Pullet Leasing Pool Policies, arguing they were adopted in bad faith, for an improper purpose, and penalized new farmers.

The Tribunal found that EFO acted transparently, consulted with producers, and implemented the policies within its mandate to manage the quota system efficiently.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding that the policies were not punitive but served to fulfill the intended goals of the quota system.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to wash water and solid waste from their truck washing facility.

Prior to the hearing, the appellants resolved the issues with the Director and formally withdrew their appeals without requiring any alteration to the Order.

The Environmental Review Tribunal applied Rule 199 of its Rules of Practice and dismissed the appeals.

The appellants appealed a Director's Order requiring them to conduct work related to solid waste and wash water generated by their truck washing facility.

The Environmental Review Tribunal held a pre-hearing conference and issued an order setting the dates for the hearing and a schedule for disclosure.

The Concerned Citizens of Brant and the County of Brant appealed the issuance of a Permit to Take Water (PTTW) and an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) for an aggregate washing operation at the Dufferin Aggregates Paris Pit.

The appellants sought revisions to the conditions of both instruments to provide greater protection to the local aquifer, particularly concerning water taking volumes, monitoring requirements, and the potential for atrazine contamination.

The Environmental Review Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving several revised conditions on consent of the parties, including clarifications to water taking limits and requirements for public posting of contingency plans.

However, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' requests for extensive additional monitoring and a new science risk assessment for atrazine, finding that the aquifer was not stressed, the existing conditions were sufficiently precautionary, and there was no credible threat of atrazine contamination from the operations.

The Directors and the Instrument Holder requested clarification of the remedy sought by the Appellants in their appeals of a Permit to Take Water and an Environmental Compliance Approval.

The Tribunal ordered the Appellants to provide particulars of their requested relief, including proposed wording for replacement conditions where possible, to promote an efficient and effective hearing process.