Philip Osterhout

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances to permit the construction of a self-use one-storey accessory recreational building for indoor sports.

The requested variances sought relief for maximum accessory building height and maximum lot coverage.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances satisfied the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town-initiated Franktown Road Neighbourhood Secondary Plan (OPA 11).

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local property owner on consent.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

Skycroft Campground appealed the Township of South Frontenac's refusal of its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a significant expansion of its campsites and cabins.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed development would have no negative impacts on natural heritage features or their ecological functions.

The Tribunal found the Environmental Impact Study was improperly scoped and methodologically flawed, particularly regarding species at risk such as the Cerulean Warbler and Gray Ratsnake.

Furthermore, the scale of the proposed expansion did not conform to the density and waterfront amenity requirements of the Township's Official Plan.

The appellant sought a Zoning By-law Amendment to retroactively legalize unauthorized development on a waterfront property, including additions to a seasonal cottage and various decks within the prescribed 30-metre shoreline setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the requested exceptions failed to conform with the Township Official Plan's strict shoreline setback policies designed to protect the ecological and heritage features of the Rideau Canal waterway.

The Tribunal rejected the appellant's ecological evidence due to factual misapprehensions and accepted the municipality's evidence that the unauthorized development likely had an unacceptable negative impact on the environment and Species at Risk habitat.

The claimant sought an assessment of legal costs under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act following a settlement with the expropriating authority.

The authority argued that interest was not payable on unpaid legal accounts and that the claimant's costs were excessive due to duplication.

The Tribunal held that reasonable legal fees are payable regardless of whether they have been paid by the claimant, and that interest on those fees is compensable from the date of settlement.

The Tribunal reduced the claimant's legal costs by 10-20% for certain stages due to excessive internal discussions, awarding $356,755.45 in pre-settlement costs plus interest.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical omission in its April 24, 2024 decision.

The amendment adds that the Tribunal had received a Participant Status Request from Shelagh Hurley and granted her Participant status.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The claimant brought a motion for a confidentiality order regarding business loss reports filed in an expropriation proceeding.

The parties had settled all compensation claims except for costs under section 32 of the Expropriations Act.

The claimant argued that public disclosure of its confidential financial records, including costs and profit margins, would cause competitive disadvantage and economic harm.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion, ordering that the specified business loss reports be excluded from the publicly available file and redacted from the final costs decision.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing concerning three appeals against the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The appellants reached settlements with the City to establish site-specific zoning provisions for their respective properties, including permissions for office and medical clinic uses, and a mixed-use development.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to give effect to the settlements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit a seasonal cottage to be used as a year-round dwelling.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two area residents on consent, noted the parties' openness to mediation, approved the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Skycroft Campground (2011) Ltd. against the Township of South Frontenac's refusal of applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to permit additional campsites.

The Tribunal granted party status to Protect Opinicon Inc. and Queen's University, directed the parties to submit an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 15-day merit hearing for January 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

Following a motion hearing, the Tribunal ordered that the Zoning By-law is deemed to come into full force and effect as of April 18, 2023, save and except for specific regulations, maps, and appendices remaining under appeal on a City-wide basis, and the entirety of the by-law as it applies to specific properties remaining under site-specific appeals.

The order also scoped the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to specific geographical areas.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, related Official Plan updates, and residential parking requirements.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal consolidated the Parking By-law Appeal with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment appeals.

The Tribunal also scheduled a settlement hearing for April 23, 2024, to address settlements reached with several appellants, and a third Case Management Conference for June 25, 2024.

Windmill Developments Ltd. brought a motion to dismiss appeals by two individuals against the City of Ottawa's approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment for a high-rise residential development.

The appellants argued the development did not comply with a policy regarding distance to a transit station and relied on outdated traffic data.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide expert evidence and that their grounds of appeal did not disclose legitimate planning grounds with a reasonable prospect of success.

The motion was granted and the appeals were dismissed.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for directions seeking partial approval of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, save and except for certain sections under appeal.

The City also sought to scope the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to site-specific or area-specific appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the notices of appeal for both respondents only provided reasons related to specific properties and did not justify city-wide appeals.

The Tribunal deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law to be in full force and effect and ordered the respondents to scope their appeals accordingly.

The moving party sought costs against the appellant after the appellant withdrew his appeal of the City's refusal to grant a heritage permit.

The moving party argued the appellant acted unreasonably by pursuing an appeal with no reasonable prospect of success and withdrawing it shortly before the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant's conduct in attempting to settle the matter and subsequently withdrawing the appeal in a timely manner did not constitute unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal granted party status to 2793031 Ontario Inc. on consent.

The parties advised that discussions were ongoing to scope the issues and potentially bring parts of the by-law into force.

The Tribunal scheduled a scoping motion and a second Case Management Conference, and directed the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to convert an existing three-unit dwelling into a four-unit low-rise apartment.

The variances related to rear yard setback, rear yard area, interior side yard setbacks, front façade recess, and garbage container pathway.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, being minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and maintaining the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Ottawa's Community Benefits Charge By-law No. 2022-307.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two entities on consent.

The parties advised that discussions were ongoing and requested a second CMC to allow time to develop an Issues List and draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to continue working collaboratively.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's refusal to issue a heritage permit for the construction of a dwelling in a heritage conservation district.

The Tribunal granted party status to a residents' association and approved the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal declined to include a legal jurisdictional issue in the Issues List, noting that such a challenge should be brought by way of a formal motion.

A five-day hearing was scheduled.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal to issue a permit for the construction of a dwelling in a heritage conservation district under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted provisional party status to the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties to finalize the issues list and identify expert witnesses.