Paul M. DeMelo

The owners of a property requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused their application for minor variances to build a new house.

The owners alleged that the TLAB member made errors of law and violated procedural fairness by relying on a site visit, referencing past committee experience, and misapplying the test for minor variances.

The reviewing member dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and concluding that the original member properly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal tests.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a nine-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Halton on consent.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to two individuals who attended the hearing and raised genuine land use planning concerns.

Two other individuals who requested participant status but failed to attend the hearing were denied status.

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

The Regional Municipality of York commenced an arbitration against Calgas Investments Limited to determine compensation for expropriated property interests.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits for March 2024.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to arrange a mediation assessment and pre-hearing conference.

The Niagara Home Builders' Association appealed the City of Thorold's Development Charges By-law No. 46-2019, challenging the inclusion of four road projects (portions of Barker Parkway and Upper's Lane, and related intersection improvements).

The appellant argued these were 'local services' and thus ineligible for development charges funding.

The Tribunal found that the City's Local Service Policy takes precedence in determining DC eligibility.

Based on their function, Barker Parkway and Upper's Lane were classified as Arterial Roads serving a broader community function, not just the specific subdivision.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the road projects and intersection improvements were properly included as DC eligible growth-related services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling.

The requested variances included significant increases in lot coverage, gross floor area, and building length, as well as a reduced front yard setback.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and refused the variances, finding that the proposed dwelling constituted an over-development of the site that would not respect and reinforce the character of the neighbourhood.

The panel concluded that the variances did not maintain the general intent of the official plan and were not minor in nature.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals from the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make a decision on proposed plans of subdivision.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming five-day hearing scheduled to commence on December 4, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the respondent's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application.

The amendment sought to replace a planned local road with a pedestrian easement.

As the parties were unable to resolve the matter, the Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss Dunpar Homes' appeal of the City's Parkland Conveyance By-law without a hearing, arguing the notice of appeal failed to set out sufficient objections and reasons as required by s. 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Dunpar argued that an earlier draft of its appeal letter was inadvertently filed electronically, but that it still contained sufficient planning grounds, and that a correct hard copy was also served.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's motion, finding that the electronic notice of appeal provided a sufficient 'originating core' of planning grounds, specifically that the by-law failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies, and that the appeal should not be dismissed on an overly technical basis.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by Fourteen Estates against the Municipality of Clarington's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 107.

The parties requested a five-day hearing to resolve the remaining site-specific issues concerning Environmental Protection designations, boundaries, and the scope of an Environmental Impact Study.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a Procedural Order, Issues List, and confirmation of participation from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Region of Durham.

The appellant appealed the Town of Shelburne's Development Charge By-law No. 21-2020.

The parties reached a settlement that removed specific items from the development charge calculation, reducing the net capital costs by 3%.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified by-law complied with the Development Charges Act and ensured that growth pays for growth.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law schedules in accordance with the settlement.

The County of Brant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal not to schedule hearings on the merits of two sets of appeals while an Interim Control By-law (ICBL) was in effect.

The County argued that scheduling the hearings would run contrary to the intent of section 38 of the Planning Act, which provides a municipality with 'breathing space' to rethink its land use policies.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that section 38 only authorizes a municipality to prohibit the use of land, buildings, or structures, and does not suspend the processing of development applications or the adjudication of appeals.

The Tribunal concluded that scheduling the hearings offered the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the proceedings under section 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Niagara Falls Canada Hotel Association and the Niagara Home Builders' Association against two Region-wide Development Charge By-laws passed by the Regional Municipality of Niagara.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the appeals consolidated, directed the filing of a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a nine-day merit hearing for February 2024.

The appellant developer appealed the calculation of development charges by the Town of Oakville and the Region of Halton, arguing that 21 'one-bedroom plus den' units were incorrectly classified as two-bedroom units.

The appellant contended that the dens did not meet the Ontario Building Code's requirements for a habitable bedroom.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Development Charges By-laws explicitly include dens in their definition of a bedroom for the purpose of calculating growth-related costs, and that the Ontario Building Code's habitability standards do not override the clear language of the by-laws.

This ruling addresses the issue of costs following a decision granting a permanent injunction to Foxgate Developments Inc. and confirming an interlocutory injunction for The Corporation of Haldimand County.

The successful parties, Foxgate and Haldimand, sought costs from the defendant, Skyler Williams.

Williams argued that the litigation was in the public interest, warranting an exemption from costs, or that costs should be deferred or referred to an assessment officer.

The court dismissed Williams' arguments, finding that the case did not meet the high threshold for public interest litigation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to Foxgate ($60,000) and Haldimand ($13,000), to be paid forthwith by Skyler Williams, determining that his conduct did not warrant solicitor-client or full indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit a 306-unit residential subdivision.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal granted party status to four neighbouring developers and participant status to several individuals.

The Tribunal declined to set hearing dates due to the need for the parties to collaborate on an issues list and the County's intention to bring a motion regarding the appropriateness of setting dates while an interim control by-law is in effect.

A second case management conference was scheduled.

The appellants appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's new Development Charges By-law No. 25-22.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested Tribunal-led mediation to reach a settlement or reduce the issues list.

A request for party status by the Southwest Georgetown Landowners Group Inc. was deferred to the next CMC, pending the outcome of the mediation.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file an agreed Procedural Order if a hearing on the merits remains necessary after mediation.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application.

The parties advised that City Staff will bring a report to City Council in March, and requested a second CMC be scheduled in May 2023 to either convert to a settlement hearing or schedule a hearing date.

The Tribunal scheduled the second CMC and determined no Procedural Order was required at this time.

The responding parties appealed the site plan application fees levied by the moving party municipality, having paid a portion under protest.

Prior to the scheduled two-day hearing on the merits, the municipality brought a motion to adjourn.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the adjournment, converted the hearing event into a Case Management Conference, scheduled a new four-day hearing, and issued procedural directions for the exchange of materials and a hearing plan.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development proposal for Phase 5 of the Lakeside Village Development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a community association on consent.

The parties requested a 12-day hearing for Phase II, which the Tribunal scheduled for August and September 2023.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The plaintiff developer sought a permanent injunction to remove protesters, including the named defendant Skyler Williams, from its property where it was constructing a residential subdivision.

The defendant argued that the common law test for injunctions was unconstitutional and disproportionately impacted Indigenous persons, and that the Crown had a duty to consult.

The court found that the defendant was not an authorized representative asserting collective s. 35 rights, and that the common law test for injunctions adequately balances Charter values.

Finding that the plaintiff held legal title and that damages would be inadequate for the ongoing trespass, the court granted the permanent injunction.