Russell D. Cheeseman

The Township of Uxbridge brought a motion requesting that the hearing of appeals by the applicant regarding official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, and a plan of subdivision be phased.

The Township proposed that the first phase deal with threshold issues of servicing allocation and sewage capacity.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the applications should be considered comprehensively and that phasing would cause significant delay and redundancy in expert evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that there would be ample crossover in expert witnesses and that it was appropriate to hear the comprehensive applications together.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 14-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert evidence that the proposed development is appropriate, fits harmoniously with the existing context, and meets the intent of the applicable policy framework.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment, finding it represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 12-storey non-profit residential building.

At the first case management conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 9-day merit hearing and directed the parties to finalize a draft issues list.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision regarding minor variances to facilitate the construction of two warehouse buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on amended variances for a reduced minimum yard abutting a residential use and a reduced parking requirement.

The Tribunal found that the amended application required no further notice as it requested less relief.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and noise evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, authorizing the variances subject to conditions, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act and represented good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 2-storey agri-tourism facility on an active organic farm.

The proposed development included overnight accommodation for up to 12 guest rooms to educate the public about organic farming.

The Tribunal found that the proposed 'Agri-tourism Retreat' is a unique concept that meets the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Greenbelt Plan, and the Rural Hamilton Official Plan as an on-farm diversified use.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence regarding land use planning and natural heritage, concluding that the development would not negatively impact agricultural operations or natural heritage features.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, approving the amendments in principle.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment relating to driveway widths, trailer parking, and open storage.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the properties at 11 and 33 Perdue Court.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed site-specific amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Region of Peel Official Plan, and Town of Caledon Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon zoning exceptions.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in a previous decision.

The amendment corrected the hearing start date, confirming that the hearing would commence on February 6, 2023, and approved the revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard motions regarding appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

Sheltering parties Castandgrey and Country sought to refuse the appellants' partial withdrawal of appeals, arguing the entire Elfrida Area should remain under consideration for urban expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the motions in part, ruling that while it would not refuse the scoping of issues, the full Elfrida Area potential urban boundary remains under appeal and the Ministry's modifications for non-appellant lands are not in force.

A separate motion by LIV Developments Ltd. for party status was denied as it did not advance the public interest and would result in a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Appellant brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed its appeal of the City of St. Catharines' Official Plan Amendment No. 26 in full, and sought a stay of the OPA.

The Appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated rules of natural justice, and made errors of law by dismissing the appeal in full when the responding parties had only sought partial dismissal.

The Tribunal found the Appellant failed to establish a convincing and compelling case under Rule 25.7 that the Tribunal made any of the enumerated errors.

The motion for review and request for a stay were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision and related amendments.

The parties agreed to minor changes to the draft plan conditions previously approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, primarily relating to a new multi-use trail.

Relying on the uncontested land use planning evidence of the City's expert, the Tribunal approved the revised draft plan conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit a 630-unit residential development.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 15-day hearing to commence in May 2023.

The Tribunal also ordered the parties to submit a final or draft Procedural Order by August 5, 2022, to narrow the issues for the hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Kitchener's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13 and 16-storey mixed-use building on lands designated Arterial Commercial.

The City and Region opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the planned function of the area and lacked adequate pedestrian and transit infrastructure.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the proposed infill intensification was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development consisting of an 11-storey building and a 6-storey apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan, and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final instruments and the execution of a section 37 agreement.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 243 square meter addition to an existing group home.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised site plan constitutes good planning and conforms to provincial policies regarding accessibility and special needs housing, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site plans in principle, subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for an industrial building and outdoor storage area.

The Regional Municipality of Halton was granted party status on consent.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal granted conditional approval of the interim Site Plan, pending the resolution of outstanding conditions, and scheduled a future hearing to finalize the site plan and conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by HS4 Finch Investments Inc. from the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a mixed-use building.

The City advised that City Council would consider the appeal at an upcoming meeting, which could lead to a settlement or the development of an issues list.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 14, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the owner of 33 Perdue Court from the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for truck parking.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to file a revised site plan, set dates for the Town's comments and a revised issues list, and scheduled a three-day hearing for September 2022.

The 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 proposed agri-tourism facility.

The parties presented a draft Procedural Order on consent.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order, which sets a 14-day hearing commencing September 26, 2022.

The Town of Grimsby brought a motion for discovery seeking extensive financial and development documentation from the applicant, Rosebay Construction Inc., in a dispute over the valuation of land for a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The Town sought the documents to conduct a new appraisal using a Residual Land Value methodology, having previously relied on a Direct Comparison Approach.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that ordering production at this late stage would be prejudicial to the applicant, cause significant delay, and fail to offer a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the proceeding.