Shelley Kaufman

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 206-210 (Heritage Heights Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to the Credit Valley Conservation Authority and the Regional Municipality of Peel, and participant status to TC Energy.

The Tribunal also established a schedule for the parties to finalize a Consolidated Issues List and a draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for March 23, 2023.

The applicant appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on a rezoning and plan of subdivision application for a 390-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal heard requests for party and participant status from numerous individuals.

The Tribunal reserved its decision on all status requests to allow for further discussions between the parties and consultation with interested individuals, scheduling a second Case Management Conference for December 2022.

The Appellant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 27-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development conforms with the City's 2008 Official Plan, the Growth Plan, and the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal held that the proposed height, massing, and urban design were appropriate for the downtown context and provided adequate transition.

The Tribunal also found the proposed parking supply and shadow impacts to be acceptable.

The appeal was allowed in principle, subject to conditions including a holding symbol related to environmental site remediation.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a high-rise residential development, the Tribunal addressed the draft Procedural Order, mediation opportunities, and the Issues List.

The Tribunal excluded three disputed issues relating to consistency and conformity with provincial plans from the Issues List because they were not raised in the appellant's notice of appeal.

An eight-day video hearing was scheduled.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's new Official Plan, Official Plan Amendment 119, and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418.

The Tribunal approved a Master Procedural Order setting out a phased hearing plan and approved the Procedural Order for the Phase 1A hearing on agriculture issues, scheduling it for April 2023.

The parties requested a further Case Management Conference (CMC) to address details of phasing and outstanding matters in the Procedural Order regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 24, 2022.

The City of Burlington brought a motion during a Case Management Conference to release the freeze on certain lands under an Interim Control By-law (ICBL).

The ICBL remained in effect due to appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) that applied only to a specific area near the Burlington GO Station.

The Tribunal found, based on uncontested planning evidence, that the ZBA did not apply to the lands outside its specific area.

Consequently, pursuant to s. 38(6.1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal's finding invoked the release of the ICBL for all remaining lands outside the ZBA area, allowing prior zoning to resume effect.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the new Official Plan for the City of Burlington, as modified and approved by the Regional Municipality of Halton.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several requestors and set deadlines for the submission of issues lists and a draft Procedural Order.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled to address overlapping appeals with another Official Plan Amendment.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding the applicable legislative and policy framework for a subdivision development proposal.

The LPAT had determined that the current policy regime applied, relying on the retroactive application of s. 22.1 of the Planning Act to establish the request date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the LPAT's determination involved questions of mixed fact and law, and that the issues raised were not of sufficient general or public importance to warrant the court's attention.

The Town of Grimsby appealed a decision declaring that a private works yard was a permitted use on the respondent's property, which was zoned as a 'Utility Zone'.

The Town argued the use must be related to a public or quasi-public utility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied the modern principles of statutory interpretation.

The zoning by-law unambiguously defined 'Works Yard' as a permitted use without restricting it to public or utility purposes, and the by-law's plain language governed.

The Conservation Review Board issued an amending order on consent of the parties to change the date for the disclosure of certain documents held by the City of Mississauga.

The disclosure date was extended from June 26, 2015, to July 2, 2015, in the context of a proceeding regarding a Notice of Intention to Designate the property known as Hammond House under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The property owners requested advance disclosure of certain documents held by the City of Mississauga prior to a hearing regarding a Notice of Intention to Designate their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Conservation Review Board granted the owners personal access to the documents, finding they had the potential to provide necessary evidence for the hearing.

The Board dismissed the owners' request for costs, finding the City did not act unreasonably or in bad faith.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board approving a subdivision plan, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive notice of the hearing.

The moving party held an easement over land near the proposed subdivision but was not on the municipal tax roll.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board followed its standard notice procedures and was not required to notify an easement holder it could not have known about.

The court also found no error in the Board Chair's refusal to review and re-open the decision.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which denied their motion to dismiss the respondent's appeal without a hearing.

The moving parties argued that the OMB had improperly made final determinations on their defences of res judicata and laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's decision was interlocutory and merely determined that the issues were worthy of a full hearing, despite the OMB's reasons going further than necessary.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision allowing a subdivision application to proceed to a hearing.

The central issue was whether the Board had jurisdiction under the Planning Act despite amendments to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act requiring a development permit before any development decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in law by failing to address the mandatory language of the amended legislation.

The Court further held that the respondent did not have a vested right to a hearing before the Board.

Following the dismissal of two related appeals brought by groups of developers, the successful municipal respondents sought costs.

The City of Mississauga sought partial indemnity costs of $70,379.25, while the Region of Halton and City of Burlington sought full indemnity costs of approximately $176,000.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs should follow the event on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the prior proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board and Divisional Court, and the consolidated hearing, the court awarded $50,000 to Mississauga and $50,000 to Halton and Burlington.

Developers appealed decisions of the Divisional Court regarding the interpretation of 'conflict' under O. Reg. 82/98 between pre-existing subdivision agreements and municipal development charge by-laws.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court correctly applied a standard of correctness to the Ontario Municipal Board's decisions.

The Court affirmed that a conflict exists only if the subdivision agreement, properly interpreted, precludes the infrastructure charges imposed by the development charge by-law.

The appeals and cross-appeal were dismissed.