Peter Krysiak

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a residential development in Hamilton.

The Tribunal granted participant status to nine individuals, approved the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a nine-day merit hearing to commence on October 1, 2024.

The applicants sought to sever an existing rural residential lot containing two dwellings into two parcels, arguing the lots had inadvertently merged.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the consent.

The City of Hamilton appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and denied the consent, finding that the proposed severance did not have regard to matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement's discouragement of lot creation in rural areas, and did not conform with the Rural Hamilton Official Plan's protection of agricultural lands.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment.

The applications seek to permit a residential development consisting of eight multiple dwellings and townhouses.

The procedural order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, and deadlines for the exchange of evidence.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development consisting of multiple dwellings and townhouses.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised that discussions and mediation were ongoing.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on March 10, 2025, and directed the parties to submit a final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Site Plan Approval to permit a residential building.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 14-storey building with 227 units, including an affordable housing component.

Based on uncontroverted planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's calculation of a cash-in-lieu of parkland fee, arguing that the fee should be reduced under the new provisions of Bill 23.

The central issue was whether an excavation and shoring permit issued prior to Bill 23's in-force date constituted a 'building permit' under the Planning Act and Building Code Act.

The Tribunal applied principles of statutory interpretation and accepted expert evidence that the excavation and shoring permit was indeed a building permit.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Bill 23 changes did not apply to the development and dismissed the appeal, upholding the original fee calculation.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a complete community development.

Following a settlement on the instruments in a prior phase, this hearing addressed the remaining contested Draft Plan conditions and Subdivision Agreement provisions.

The parties reached a full settlement during the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed conditions met the criteria under s. 51(24) and s. 51(25) of the Planning Act, represented good planning, and were in the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the Draft Plan subject to the agreed conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval to permit a high-density residential development consisting of stacked townhouses and a mid-rise condominium building.

The parties reached a comprehensive settlement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and local official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments and site plan were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fifth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Hamilton for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The applications seek to permit a 630-unit residential development.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties to govern the upcoming 12-day merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 69 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 17-240.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to implement a site-specific zoning by-law amendment for the subject property, converting the proceeding to a settlement hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order until the related Official Plan Amendment is approved by the City.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to 15 individuals, noted the parties' interest in Tribunal-led mediation, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested a second CMC to allow time to finalize the issues in dispute or reach a settlement.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a second CMC.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use building or retirement home.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant reached settlement agreements with the City and the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Barrie's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use condominium development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal, which reduced the building height and addressed access concerns, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the submission of the final zoning by-law amendment and confirmation of the settlement conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated April 6, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended paragraph 20 of the decision to reflect that the effective date of the order was October 11, 2022, rather than September 8, 2022.

The applicants appealed the City of Barrie's adoption of By-law No. 2022-009 and its failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 46-townhouse development.

At a settlement hearing, uncontroverted expert planning evidence demonstrated that the revised proposal for 46 units (reduced from 88) is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, repealed By-law No. 2022-009, and approved the requested Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant appealed the City of Barrie Committee of Adjustment's denial of minor variances required to convert an existing accessory structure into a detached accessory dwelling unit.

The variances sought relief for rear and side yard setbacks, landscape buffering, and the use of a private septic system instead of municipal services.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's land use planning evidence, finding that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Barrie's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use condominium.

At a second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal granted party status to Malcolm Hachborn and reviewed the contentious issues proposed by him and another added party, David McKenzie.

Several proposed issues were struck for being irrelevant to the Tribunal's mandate, such as questions about the municipality's internal processes and public meeting conduct.

The Tribunal conditionally retained two of Hachborn's issues relating to stormwater management, directing that a motion be held to predetermine whether his daughter could be qualified as an independent expert witness to support those issues.

Hearing dates were scheduled.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a proposed 8-storey mixed-use condominium, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to a nearby resident, finding he had a genuine interest and raised valid issues.

Participant status was granted to four other residents without objection.

The Tribunal directed the parties to revise their draft Issues Lists and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The City of Barrie expropriated lands owned by the claimant and filed a Notice of Arbitration to determine compensation.

At the first Case Management Conference, the City sought to schedule a hearing due to ongoing prejudice from accruing interest, while the claimant's counsel required more time to obtain instructions regarding a settlement offer.

The Tribunal directed the claimant to respond by a specified date and provided instructions for scheduling a further CMC or hearing if a settlement could not be reached.