Philip Osterhout

The moving party, a heritage foundation, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that granted zoning and Official Plan amendments to allow the construction of two high-rise buildings in downtown Kingston.

The moving party argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to interpret the Official Plan as a whole and incorrectly interpreting specific compatibility criteria.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Tribunal's balancing of the Official Plan's competing objectives of heritage preservation and urban intensification was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable error of law.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications for a property at 551 Edison Avenue.

The applications sought to sever the property into two lots to construct two new detached dwellings with detached garages.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is compatible with the neighbourhood, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and meets the four tests for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the minor variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed two conditions of draft plan approval for a subdivision that required the dedication of a 40-metre wide transitway right-of-way at no cost to the City.

The required dedication represented 19.1% of the total area of the plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal found that while the transitway was necessary for the City's orderly growth, requiring the dedication of the entire right-of-way at no cost was not reasonable, relevant, necessary, or equitable for this specific development.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the conditions to require the appellant to dedicate 5% of the land area at no cost, with the City to compensate the appellant at fair market value for the remaining land required.

The Applicant and the Town sought costs against the Appellant following the dismissal of his appeal regarding a site-specific zoning by-law.

The Tribunal found that the Appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious, noting his lack of direct interest, failure to present evidence, late scoping of issues without notice, and history of unsubstantiated appeals.

The Tribunal awarded costs against the Appellant fixed at $10,000, apportioned between the Applicant and the Town, to deter meritless appeals while not discouraging legitimate public participation.

The appellant appealed the Town's passing of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment to permit a mixed-use commercial and residential redevelopment of an underutilized shopping centre.

The appellant argued the development was incompatible with surrounding residences, lacked affordable housing, and would cause nuisance and shadowing.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the uncontested expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the applicable Official Plans, and represents good planning by facilitating appropriate intensification.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of two consent applications to create two new rural lots.

Prior to the hearing, the applicants and the municipality reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposals complied with Minimum Distance Separation formulae, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and granted provisional consents subject to conditions.

The applicant applied for a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 124-unit apartment building.

The town approved the amendment, and the appellant appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal held a case management conference to organize the hearing.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order, set an issues list, and scheduled a one-day video hearing to determine the merits of the appeal.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Ottawa's Zoning By-Law No. 2019-353, which introduced new zoning provisions for high-rise buildings.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on July 11, 2022, and issued a procedural order governing the proceedings, including the finalization of the issues list and the order of evidence.