S. Fleming

The appellant appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to allow front-yard parking for single-detached homes designed to accommodate two Additional Residential Units (ARUs).

The municipality did not attend the hearing but its planning staff report supported the variance.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act, noting that it aligned with provincial housing objectives and corrected an inadvertent omission in the updated zoning by-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized.

The appellant brought a motion for discovery seeking the disclosure of a Market and Economic Analysis Report prepared by an outside consultant for the City of Brampton regarding a planning application.

The City argued the report was protected by litigation privilege as it was commissioned in anticipation of an appeal to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the report was not requested in a public forum, was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, and was therefore protected by litigation privilege.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the report was neither necessary nor relevant as the City did not intend to rely on it.

The motion for discovery was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the levying of fees by the Town of Milton for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, having paid $231,371.70 under protest pursuant to section 69(3) of the Planning Act.

The Appellant argued the fees were unreasonable as they exceeded the cost of preparing the original application materials.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Town's fees were reasonably connected to its anticipated processing costs, as supported by a comprehensive User Fee Review Study, and that the Act does not require fees to be based on the actual costs incurred by the applicant.

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 30-unit single-detached residential development.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, York Region Official Plan, and Town of Aurora Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of a dwelling, boathouse, and dock.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the proposed development standards, including a reduced gross floor area and lot coverage, and required a site plan agreement to protect fish habitat.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit two 20-storey towers.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to several nearby residents without objection.

The Tribunal scheduled a 20-day video hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the future conduct of the proceeding.

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 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 by the applicant against the municipality's failure to render a decision on a site-specific Official Plan Amendment application.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to two neighbouring entities.

A third entity requested party status but agreed to accept participant status after concerns were raised.

The Tribunal set a timeline for finalizing the Issues List and Procedural Order, and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit the construction of two fourplex buildings on a severed lot.

The applicant requested variances primarily related to gross floor area, building height, side wall height, and first floor height above grade.

The Tribunal found that while recent Official Plan amendments permit multiplexes, they still require development to respect the prevailing built form of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested height variances would result in a built form incompatible with the surrounding area, failing the four tests under the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate a 10-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amendment was approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed two-storey single-family dwelling.

The subject land is identified as having natural heritage significance.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Participant status to a local residents' association.

A revised Procedural Order was approved, and a 15-day video hearing was scheduled for July 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 630-unit residential development and the adaptive reuse of a heritage building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The applications propose a 122-unit residential development.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on October 28, 2024, and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 16-storey residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 17-storey mixed-use building with 319 units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represents good transit-oriented development.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The parties attended a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Hamilton's non-decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications for a 630-unit residential development.

A previously scheduled settlement hearing was delayed due to a cyber security attack on the City.

The parties requested additional time for document review and sought to schedule a new half-day settlement hearing.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled the settlement hearing for May 27, 2024.

The appellants appealed a director's decision under the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, which partially affirmed inspector's orders following a carbon monoxide poisoning incident.

The appellants argued the director erred by relying on insufficient evidence from an inadequate investigation and breached procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and failing to order document production.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the director properly weighed the evidence in an administrative context and that the written hearing met the requisite duty of fairness.

The appellant sought to sever a property to build two semi-detached dwellings, requiring variances for lot area, frontage, side yard setbacks, and building height.

The Committee of Adjustment denied the application, and the owner appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Tribunal found that the proposed built form and lot dimensions respected and reinforced the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, which included nearby semi-detached dwellings on similarly sized lots.

The appeal was allowed, the consent was granted, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of a three-storey, 15-unit multiple dwelling with zero on-site parking.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate residential intensification, makes efficient use of municipal infrastructure, and satisfies the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of an 8-unit multiple dwelling with reduced parking, reduced rear yard setback, and increased lot coverage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate residential intensification, is transit-supportive, and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.