Scott Snider

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant Party Status to three entities on consent, noting they must shelter under the appellants' issues.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 25-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to continue scoping issues and exploring settlement.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to refer an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the doctrine of exhaustion.

The court held that absent exceptional circumstances, judicial review should not fragment ongoing administrative processes, and the merits of the proposed amendment would be properly decided by the Tribunal.

This was a status hearing regarding multiple appeals against the Region of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 119 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal deferred a party status request from Canadian National Railway Company to the next Case Management Conference to allow parties time to obtain instructions.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 16, 2025.

The appellants appealed under the Drainage Act regarding the Hostine Drain East Branch.

The Tribunal considered whether one of the appellants had standing to appeal under section 54 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that standing under section 54 requires the appellant to have been a party to the appeal before the court of revision.

Because the appellant was not an owner of land assessed for the drainage works, she could not have been a party before the court of revision.

Consequently, her appeal was dismissed for lack of standing.

Multiple appeals were brought under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act regarding the adoption of a new town-wide Official Plan by the Town of Collingwood, as approved by the County of Simcoe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four requesting entities without objection.

The Tribunal deferred three requests for party status until the next CMC or until an Issues List is formalized, to allow the proposed parties to identify which issues they will shelter under pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A second CMC was scheduled to consider the deferred requests and further organize the appeals.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. against Norfolk County's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed three-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a five-day merits hearing to commence by video on October 27, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Telephone City Aggregates Inc. concerning the failure of the County of Brant to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applications propose a 390-unit residential development.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on August 18, 2025, for five days.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law regulating cannabis cultivation, the Tribunal was advised that a full settlement had been reached.

One party withdrew their status on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing to consider the settlement agreement and directed the parties to file supporting materials, including expert evidence.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning applications to rezone and approve a plan of subdivision, the County of Brant requested an adjournment of the merit hearing to review a newly received geotechnical report.

The appellant consented on the condition that the report be circulated on a 'with prejudice' basis and the hearing be rescheduled by August 2025.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, rescheduled the five-day merit hearing to August 18, 2025, and issued procedural directions.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct typographical errors in a decision issued on October 16, 2024.

The amendments included replacing an attachment, correcting the spelling of 'Brampton', and correcting the word 'sized' to 'seized'.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 16 appeals against the newly adopted 2023 City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to five requesting entities, including conservation authorities and railway companies, finding they had a direct interest.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals with a related Major Transit Station Area case to a subsequent joint CMC, and established a schedule for the appellants to provide modification letters to the City.

Appeals were brought against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development in Cambridge.

The applicant appealed a Holding Provision in the ZBA that required the realignment of an existing access easement to provide access to an abutting landlocked property.

A neighbouring property owner appealed both instruments, arguing they were premature until interconnected access was secured in the OPA.

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, finding that the Holding Provision was an appropriate use of section 36 of the Planning Act, supported by the Official Plan, and represented good planning in the public interest by ensuring safe, two-way interconnected access.

The Tribunal declined to modify the OPA, concluding the Holding Provision sufficiently addressed the access issue.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the appellant against the township and county concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law regulating cannabis cultivation facilities.

The parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement concept is in place but requires municipal council endorsement.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide status updates and, if no settlement is reached, to submit a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion for partial approval of two city-wide zoning by-laws (ZBL 051 and ZBL 052) to bring the unappealed portions into force, specifically excluding provisions related to electric vehicle parking standards which remain under appeal.

The Tribunal granted the motion on consent, finding the unappealed portions consistent with provincial policy and good land use planning.

The Tribunal also addressed an oral motion to dismiss appeals filed by a self-represented individual, finding that those appeals had already been withdrawn, but noting they would have been dismissed regardless for failing to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds.

The City of Brampton adopted the Heritage Heights Secondary Plan, which was subsequently appealed by multiple landowners and developers.

Following extensive mediation, the parties reached a settlement resulting in a Revised Heritage Heights Secondary Plan that accommodates provincial transportation and transmission corridors while increasing projected population and jobs.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised plan consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the modified plan save for two deferred areas that remain subject to ongoing discussions.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 95-unit townhouse development.

At the sixth Case Management Conference, the parties advised that discussions were ongoing and requested a one-day settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the settlement hearing for October 17, 2024, noting that if site plan and subdivision applications are not resolved, the second half of the hearing will convert to a Case Management Conference for those matters.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Parkside Hills Inc. concerning conditions of approval for a Draft Plan of Subdivision and a related Site Plan Application in the City of Hamilton.

The core issue involves the valuation of lands to be conveyed to the City for stormwater management purposes.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing for January 2025 and approved the Procedural Order submitted by the parties.

The applicant appealed the failure of the County of Brant to make decisions regarding applications to rezone and approve a plan of subdivision for a 390-unit residential development.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and requested the scheduling of a five-day merit hearing and a fourth Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal scheduled the merit hearing for February 2025 and the next Case Management Conference for November 2024, and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference concerning appeals for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision, the Tribunal granted party status to FP Mayfield West (Caledon) Inc. on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that the parties may proceed with a settlement of the Official Plan Amendment appeal by way of a written hearing or motion, with the date to be set administratively upon consent of all parties.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on an application for Site Plan Approval for a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented agreed-upon Conditions of Approval to the Tribunal.

Relying on the uncontested affidavit evidence of a land use planner, the Tribunal found the site plan and conditions were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and satisfied the requirements of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the site plan subject to the agreed conditions.