Sara J. Premi

Multiple appellants appealed the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 99, which adopted the Glendale Secondary Plan.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached settlement agreements that proposed various policy and mapping modifications to the Secondary Plan, including adjustments to land use designations, building heights, and density permissions.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended Secondary Plan.

The appellant appealed the municipality's by-law designating a property as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert heritage planning evidence that the property had been significantly altered and did not meet any of the prescribed criteria in O. Reg. 9/06.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and repealed the designating by-law.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The City sought $27,699.06 and the developer sought $43,176.94, while the appellant argued costs should be fixed at $25,000.00 total.

The Divisional Court noted the appellant's own bill of costs was over $59,000, indicating its reasonable expectations.

The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 to the City and $30,000.00 to the developer, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent municipality's decisions to approve planning applications and a demolition permit for the respondent theatre company's heritage theatre, located in a heritage conservation district.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant, a local building corporation, lacked both private and public interest standing to challenge the decisions.

In the alternative, the court held that the municipality's decisions to permit the demolition and exempt the new theatre from parking requirements were reasonable, as they were based on extensive consultation, expert reports, and a balancing of heritage conservation with accessibility and economic benefits.

The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.

Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.

The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.

The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to neighbouring landowners to operate a dog kennel.

The respondents challenged the applicant's standing due to recent legislative amendments limiting third-party appeal rights.

The Divisional Court found the applicant had private interest standing because the variance directly affected their ability to build on their own land.

The Court held the Committee's decision was unreasonable as it failed to articulate or apply the four-part statutory test for a minor variance and provided inadequate reasons.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the Committee for a rehearing.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's Official Plan Amendment 99 (Glendale Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted participant status to an individual, denying her request for party status as it did not meet the requirements of Rule 8.2.

The parties advised that settlement agreements had been reached or were near completion.

The Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing and/or third Case Management Conference for March 6, 2026, and set deadlines for the submission of settlement materials and procedural documents.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by Parklane Home Builders Limited against the Town of Fort Erie's by-law designating a property as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits for March 2026 and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Tribunal also encouraged the parties to consider mediation to narrow or resolve the issues.

The applicants appealed the County's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an existing basement secondary suite and an addition to their dwelling.

The application was subsequently narrowed to only recognize the existing secondary suite.

The Tribunal found that the revised application, supported by expert planning evidence and consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, conforms to the County's Official Plan and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law accordingly.

The appellant appealed a by-law passed by the municipality designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the parties requested a subsequent conference to allow the municipality to review a recently prepared cultural heritage evaluation report before settling a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a subsequent case management conference.

The appellant appealed the passage of a municipal by-law establishing a new 7-ward boundary configuration, arguing that the option was not presented during public consultations and was therefore unfair.

The respondent municipality presented expert evidence that the 7-ward option emerged organically from public feedback and met the guiding principles for effective representation.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence, finding no grounds to overturn the municipal council's decision, and dismissed the appeal.

This was a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 95 for the Glendale Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status jointly to White Oaks Tennis World Inc. and 1526882 Ontario Inc. A request for party status by another individual was deferred to the next CMC due to short notice.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and finalized Issues Lists.

The appellants appealed the failure of Haldimand County to approve a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an existing secondary suite and an addition to a dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals present but denied it to those absent.

Although the parties had resolved their issues and requested to convert the event into a settlement hearing, the Tribunal determined it was prudent to proceed with a written hearing on a different date to account for the participants' concerns.

The City of Niagara Falls requested an adjournment of an upcoming hearing regarding 2023 planning instruments, arguing the proceeding may become moot due to a prior Tribunal decision that precluded the appellant's appeal of superseding 2025 planning instruments under Bill 185.

The appellant opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled hearing to allow the appellant time to consider whether to seek a review or appeal of the prior decision, and to avoid potentially unnecessary proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update within 60 days.

The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion for directions to determine whether Cytec Canada Inc. had standing to appeal three planning instruments under the Planning Act.

Following amendments by the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, appeals are restricted to 'specified persons'.

Cytec argued it qualified as an environmental compliance approval (ECA) holder.

The Tribunal found that the plain language of subsection 1(1)(l) of the Planning Act requires the ECA activity to be undertaken on lands within 300 metres of the planning area.

Because Cytec's ECA applied to lands further away, and not to its 'Beechwood Lands' within the 300-metre radius, it did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal ordered that Cytec's appeals were precluded.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of zoning by-law amendment and consent applications to sever a residential lot containing a heritage dwelling.

The parties reached a settlement to create two lots with site-specific zoning provisions, addressing heritage conservation and tree protection.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, finding the settlement consistent with provincial policies and representing good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 4-storey, 41-unit apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which reduced the building height and increased setbacks, was consistent with provincial policies and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its decision issued on January 2, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 14 of the original decision was deleted and replaced to clarify the primary area of disagreement regarding whether the proposed development was properly categorized as residential or seasonal resort recreational development.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seasonal resort recreational development on lands designated as prime agricultural.

Following initial evidence, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the number of seasonal cottages from 173 to 125, restricted occupancy to April through October, and increased public access to recreational amenities.

The Tribunal approved the revised planning instruments, finding that the seasonal recreational use would not adversely impact nearby agricultural resources, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Port Colborne's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that included additional visual screening and privacy measures.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies, conforming to local official plans, and representing good planning by encouraging intensification and housing diversity.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.