Sarah Hahn

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a comprehensive zoning by-law and a refused consent application for five new residential lots in the Township of Tiny.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several neighbouring property owners but denied it to two individuals whose concerns related to a water pump test not conducted on the subject property.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled for November 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of Tiny's Zoning By-law No. 25-039 and Official Plan Amendment No. 5, which introduce a 'Shoreline Development Area'.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together, granted party status to several entities, confirmed the withdrawal of certain appeals, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

A 19-day merit hearing was scheduled for April 2027, and a further Case Management Conference was scheduled for July 2026.

The applicants, the Township of Clearview and the County of Simcoe, sought a declaration that a deviation road crossing the respondent's property was a public highway and requested rectification of title.

The respondent argued that the road was never a public highway, that a 1966 tax sale transferred the land to private ownership, and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the road was dedicated and accepted as a public highway in the 1800s.

The court held that the 1966 tax deed could not validly transfer a public highway, and that the municipality's claim was not barred by the Limitations Act or the doctrine of laches.

The application was granted, the road was declared a public highway, and rectification of the register was ordered.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Tiny's Zoning By-law No. 25-039 and Official Plan Amendment No. 5, which introduced a Shoreline Development Area.

The Tribunal granted party status to two entities and participant status to nine individuals and associations.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals had been administratively consolidated and scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a proposed in-water boathouse, a neighbouring party brought a motion seeking an order for discovery to compel the delivery of documents and permit a site inspection of the subject property by their consultants.

The Tribunal reviewed the draft Issues List and provided directions to scope and remove irrelevant issues, noting that matters relating to slope, vegetation, and erosion fall under the jurisdiction of the conservation authority.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for discovery, finding that the requested site access was not relevant or necessary to the disposition of the planning merits of the boathouse structure and would be highly intrusive.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the new Official Plan for the Township of Clearview.

One appellant reached a settlement in principle, and the Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider it.

The remaining appellants requested a further Case Management Conference to continue settlement discussions and address technical issues.

The Tribunal granted the requests and scheduled a third Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town of Innisfil's refusal to amend its Community Planning Permit System By-law to permit an in-water boathouse.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting neighbour and participant status to several others.

A motion for direction regarding document delivery and property inspection was adjourned to a second CMC to allow for the exchange of more specific information.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by Townline Development Holding Inc. concerning the Town of Huntsville's failure to make a decision on applications for a plan of subdivision and a community planning permit by-law amendment.

The applications propose the development of 96 residential units.

The procedural 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.

The applicants sought to quash licensing by-laws enacted by the Township of Tiny to restrict short-term rentals (STRs), arguing the by-laws were a disguised zoning by-law and ultra vires the Municipal Act.

The Court found the by-laws were a valid exercise of municipal authority, rationally connected to legitimate objectives such as health, safety, and consumer protection, and not a disguised zoning by-law.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality and town for failing to make decisions on draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted participant status to seven individuals without objection.

A three-day video hearing was scheduled, and the parties were directed to file a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a mixed-use development comprising live-work townhomes and an apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement during the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and local official plans, and approved the site plan subject to conditions.

The appellants objected to a by-law passed by the City of Richmond Hill designating their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the parties discussed the issues to be adjudicated and reviewed a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a final Issues List and subsequently set hearing dates for the matter.

The applicant appealed the Town of Huntsville's decision regarding a Community Planning Permit application to recognize existing non-complying structures and to permit the construction of a boat launch and access path.

The Town had provisionally approved the existing structures subject to conditions requiring the removal of a deck and obtaining building permits, but denied the boat launch proposal due to concerns about environmental impacts on a wetland and fish habitat.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, granting final approval to recognize the existing structures without the Town's conditions, finding them unnecessary and inappropriate.

The Tribunal also granted provisional approval for the boat launch, subject to conditions including the completion of an Environmental Impact Study and obtaining necessary approvals from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision issued on June 18, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal replaced Attachment 1 in its entirety.

In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.

The appellants appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 11 (OPA 11) by the County of Grey, which prescribed policies for future growth.

The appeals specifically concerned the identification of Future Secondary Plan Areas.

The parties reached a settlement and jointly proposed modifications to OPA 11.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised OPA 11 had regard to matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved OPA 11 as modified.

The moving parties sought costs against the Township of Clearview following the Township's withdrawal of its appeals regarding a development permit application and a Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment.

The moving parties argued that the Township's conduct, which included multiple adjournment requests and a failure to properly classify the environmental assessment, was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious.

The Township argued that the Tribunal was functus officio following the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that it retained jurisdiction to award costs but dismissed the motions, finding that the Township's conduct did not meet the high threshold required for a costs award under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town of Huntsville's decision on a Community Planning Permit application.

The applicant sought to construct a boat launch and recognize existing structures.

The Tribunal ruled that the appeal could not be split and must proceed as a trial de novo for the entire application.

The Tribunal also addressed status requests, denying party status but granting participant status to the Fox Lake Association and two individuals.

A two-day video hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was issued.

The Corporation of the Town of Wasaga Beach sought statutory, interlocutory, and quia timet injunctions against "Persons Unknown" to prevent an unauthorized H2Oi car rally scheduled for September 1-4, 2023.

The Town presented evidence of significant public safety issues, property damage, and financial costs from previous unsanctioned rallies.

The motion was heard ex parte.

The court granted the injunctions, finding a strong prima facie case that the Town's by-laws would be violated, that irreparable harm would occur, and that the balance of convenience favored the Town.

The court also affirmed the ability to issue injunctions against unknown persons.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals against Grey County's Official Plan Amendment 11, the Town of Hanover requested party status.

The appellant, Magwood Family Farms, opposed the request, arguing the Town's involvement would be duplicative and unnecessary.

The Tribunal directed that the request for party status be determined via a formal motion at a later date.

The Township of Tiny brought a motion under s. 34(31) of the Planning Act to bring into force the unappealed portions of its new comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 22-075.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the unappealed portions into effect and amending the by-law to permit a Mineral Aggregate Resources zone on specific lands in accordance with a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal also scheduled hearing dates for the remaining site-specific and section-specific appeals, including those related to short-term rentals, boathouses, and specific zoning designations.