Russell D. Cheeseman

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a landowners group.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and hearing dates.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a hobby farm on an undersized lot and to revise the definition of a hobby farm to be based on nutrient units rather than a strict animal count.

The Township argued the proposal amounted to a commercial farming operation unsuitable for the constrained rural lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, preferring the applicant's expert evidence that the proposal remains small-scale, complies with Minimum Distance Separation guidelines, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies encouraging rural agricultural uses and local food systems.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 777 (Sheppard East Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted Added Party status to the Toronto Lands Corporation, finding it is a public body that meets the statutory requirements under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also granted Participant status to the Sheppard Avenue East Community Group on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consider mediation and set a schedule for finalizing the Issues List ahead of the next Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City's calculation of a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication fee under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act.

The applicant argued that the fee should be calculated under the new Bill 23 caps because the first building permit for construction was issued after November 28, 2022.

The City argued that demolition permits issued prior to that date constituted the first building permit in respect of the development.

The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding that the demolition permits facilitated the redevelopment and thus qualified as building permits under s. 42(3.5).

The appeal was dismissed and the original fee calculation of $1,908,576.00 was upheld.

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law designating a farmhouse under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following a structural assessment revealing significant deterioration, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on expert architectural evidence that the property met only one of the required criteria for designation, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and repealed the designating by-law, noting the parties' agreement to salvage and relocate historic materials.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 21-storey residential tower.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider consolidation of appeals and finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 33-unit residential development.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to adjacent landowners who raised concerns about the proposed location of a road connection, finding no prejudice or delay would result.

Participant status was granted to two individuals.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The appellants appealed the Region of Halton's approval of Official Plan Amendment 50 (OPA 50), a Secondary Plan for the Premier Gateway Employment Area, arguing a planned east-west collector road would divide their lands and preclude proposed warehouse development.

Following the expansion of urban boundaries under Bill 162, the Town of Halton Hills studied an alternative alignment for the collector road, supported by traffic and servicing studies.

The parties reached a settlement modifying OPA 50 to reflect the alternative alignment.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications represented good planning, met all legislative tests, and allowed the appeals in part to approve the modified OPA 50.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to a 29-day merit hearing scheduled to commence on February 17, 2026.

The appeals relate to the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit five mixed-use buildings.

The Order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's deferral of a minor variance application to permit a farm labour residence in the basement of an approved agri-tourism retreat.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised variance request.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and had appropriate regard for provincial interests.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the procedures leading up to and including a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 20, 2025.

The hearing concerns an appeal regarding the failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment to permit a 10-lot subdivision on rural lands.

The Appellant appealed the District Municipality of Muskoka's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment to permit a 10-lot rural estate subdivision.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to five individuals who raised common concerns.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for October 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 58-storey mixed-use tower.

The parties agreed on all procedural matters, including a revised draft Issues List and Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-week hearing on the merits for November and December 2025.

The appellant requested a review of a TLAB decision that dismissed their appeal and confirmed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances for a fourplex development.

The appellant argued the presiding Member breached procedural fairness by disregarding uncontested expert evidence and erred in law by finding the variances failed the four tests.

The reviewing Member dismissed the request, holding that an adjudicator is not bound to accept expert opinion as fact and that the original Member provided reasonable grounds for concluding the height-related variances did not maintain the general intent of the Official Plan regarding low-rise built form.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Township of Seguin's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the redevelopment of a cottage and boathouse.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Lake Joseph North Association on consent.

The parties expressed openness to mediation, and the Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order, scheduling a three-day video hearing for September 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the municipality's failure to make decisions on an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The proposed development involves a mixed-use community with buildings up to 15 storeys.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner and issued procedural directions for the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List and to schedule a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a proposed 26-storey residential building.

At the CMC, the applicant advised of its intention to revise the application to propose a 40-storey building, which would require an Official Plan Amendment.

The municipality requested time to seek further direction from Council regarding the proposed revisions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for September 29, 2025, to allow for the revisions and ongoing mediation.

The City of Brantford brought a motion to scope appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law (CZBL) and to bring the unappealed portions of the CZBL into full force and effect on a city-wide basis.

The appellant parties consented to scoping their appeals to their specific sites or areas.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found that granting the motion represented good planning as it would streamline the development process.

The Tribunal granted the motion pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, bringing the CZBL into force save and except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by TWTH Development Inc. against the Town of Aurora's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications aim to facilitate 33 single-detached residential units.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to allow the Town to produce an Issues List and set a 10-day hearing on the merits.

Requests for party and participant status were deferred or declined pending the second CMC.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to recognize a retaining wall within a shoreline buffer and conditionally approving a variance for a floating dock.

The Tribunal found that the retaining wall functioned as a permitted flood and erosion control facility rather than a hard landscaping amenity.

The Tribunal authorized both variances, concluding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions reducing the retaining wall's height and implementing a landscape plan.