Roberto David Aburto

The applicants brought a motion for directions under the Planning Act seeking a determination that their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were complete.

The City of Hamilton had deemed the applications incomplete based on four outstanding items, including reformatted energy and financial reports, a recreation and school assessment, and sub-watershed planning.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the reports had already been provided and that the additional requirements were unreasonable for the purpose of deeming the applications complete.

The motion was granted and the applications were deemed complete.

The appellant appealed the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3 (OPA 3), which added the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

The appellant argued that the Secondary Plan inappropriately restricted their property to non-residential uses and a four-storey height limit due to a lack of committed funding for a nearby planned transit station.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the City's 'wait and see' approach to zoning based on infrastructure funding contradicted the Planning Act and failed to recognize provincial policy directions for growth and housing.

The Tribunal ordered modifications to OPA 3 to include the subject property in the Station Area, permit 40-storey heights and mixed-use residential development, and remove the requirement for a Demonstration Plan.

Theia Partners Inc. and the City of Ottawa brought a joint motion to dismiss appeals filed by prospective appellants regarding an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The moving parties argued that the prospective appellants lacked standing under the Planning Act, as amended by Bill 185 (Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024), which restricted third-party appeal rights.

The Tribunal found that the prospective appellants were not 'specified persons' and did not own land to which the amendments applied.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for lack of standing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment intended to facilitate the development of 45 stacked row dwelling condominiums.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised applications.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding the proposal represents good land use planning, constitutes appropriate residential intensification, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

The City of Toronto brought a motion on consent for an order bringing into force the unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 (OPA 409) and Zoning By-law 702-2024, which relate to the redevelopment of Villiers Island in the Port Lands.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities and approved a minor modification to OPA 409 to address concerns raised by LaFarge Canada Inc. regarding its adjacent cement terminal.

The Tribunal ordered that the unappealed sections of OPA 409 came into force on July 30, 2024, and established a procedural order for the hearing of the remaining site-specific and precinct-wide appeals by the Toronto Port Authority.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Ottawa's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 3.

The parties advised that they are engaged in ongoing settlement discussions and requested a further CMC to provide an update.

The Tribunal scheduled a further video CMC for May 27, 2025, and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List if a settlement is not reached.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision that granted an applicant's request to amend a condition of a provisional consent for a land severance.

The condition related to demonstrating adequate water quality for the proposed lots.

The applicant sought to amend the condition to allow for a minor sodium aesthetic exceedance that would be treated with an in-home reverse osmosis system.

The City argued the exceedance violated its guidelines and Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the guidelines were non-statutory interpretive tools, the health parameters were met, and the amendment conformed to the Official Plan and was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48 (Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal received updates on settlement discussions and withdrawals, scheduled a three-day merit hearing for the Guibord appeal commencing February 10, 2025, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the Brigil and Youville appeals for February 18, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development of up to 290 townhouse units.

The parties reached a settlement that increased setbacks from Collins Creek and removed single-detached dwellings in favour of townhouses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an increased height and aggregate floor area for a new detached garage on a property zoned Environmental Protected.

The Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting the structure was intended to house equipment for laneway maintenance and would not create negative impacts.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

Metrolinx applied for approval to expropriate portions of the subject properties for a temporary easement to provide construction access for track work related to the SmartTrack Program and GO Expansion.

Following discussions, the parties agreed to a revised, non-exclusive temporary easement with a reduced area.

The Tribunal found the proposed revised taking to be fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve Metrolinx's objectives of expanding and improving public transit services, and recommended approval of the expropriation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings for an appeal of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48, which adopts the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence for the hearing scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 3, the Tribunal heard a motion to substitute Denise Ménard as a party in place of 3930149 Canada Inc., whose conditional agreement of purchase and sale with Ménard had been cancelled.

With no objections, the Tribunal granted the motion.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to 21 individuals representing the public's interest in the overall effect of the OPA.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2024.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and the failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 34-unit townhouse and semi-detached development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicants appealed the City of Ottawa Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to construct a new single-detached dwelling with a front-facing attached garage, increased driveway width, and reduced landscape buffer.

The City did not participate in the hearing.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the Streetscape Character Analysis did not accurately reflect the existing neighbourhood character, which already featured numerous front-facing garages.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and being desirable and minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the City of Kingston Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the development of a six-storey, 23-unit apartment building.

The requested variances included reductions in parking requirements, an increase in maximum residential density, and a reduction in the minimum rear setback.

The City took no position on the appeal.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, had regard for matters of Provincial interest, and met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The owner applied for minor variances to permit reduced lot widths for two proposed lots created by consent.

The applications required an extension of a road and raised issues regarding the applicable Official Plan policies, as the new Official Plan was approved shortly after the applications were submitted.

The Committee of Adjustment split 2-2 on whether the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Two members found the development premature and contrary to the general intent of the Official Plan regarding village expansion, while two members found it desirable and appropriate under the former Official Plan.

Due to the tie vote, the applications were deemed refused.

The applicant sought consent to sever a property to create one new lot for future residential development.

The application raised the issue of whether the 2003 Official Plan or the newly approved 2022 Official Plan applied, invoking the Clergy principle.

City planning staff objected to the application, arguing it would impede the future planned expansion of the Village boundary and negatively impact natural heritage features.

The Committee of Adjustment split evenly on the application.

Two members found the application premature and inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the expansion of settlement areas.

Two members found the application consistent with the 2003 Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement, noting it logically completed the existing community.

Due to the tie vote, the application was deemed refused.

The owner applied to subdivide their property into three separate parcels to create two new lots for future residential development.

The City objected, arguing the proposal would impede future expansion of the settlement area and negatively impact natural heritage features.

The Committee split 2-2 on whether the applications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the applicable Official Plan policies.

Pursuant to the Committee's Rules of Procedure, a tie vote is deemed a refusal of the applications.

The applicant appealed a non-decision regarding a consent application for a lot enlargement, arguing that her property consisted of two separate existing lots of record that predated subdivision control.

In the alternative, she sought a consent to sever the property into two lots.

The Tribunal found that the property was a single lot for the purposes of the Planning Act, as an attempted severance in 1970 was abortive and failed to create legally conveyable lots.

The Tribunal also dismissed the alternative severance application, finding that the creation of a new residential lot in the Agricultural Resource Policy Area on a private road did not conform to the upper-tier municipality's Official Plan.