9 total
Appeals to permit biosolid storage in former wastewater lagoons dismissed as inconsistent with agricultural policies.
The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and a legal non-conforming use application to permit a biosolid storage facility in existing wastewater lagoons on a property in a prime agricultural area.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed use was neither an agriculture-related use nor a permitted non-agricultural use under the Provincial Policy Statement, relying on the Prime Agricultural Area Guidelines.
The Tribunal also found that the applicant could not rely on legal non-conforming use because the previous owner's use of the lagoons for its own wastewater treatment had ceased in 2017.
Tribunal affirms its jurisdiction to determine legal non-conforming use status under s. 45(2) of the Planning Act.
The Municipality brought a motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a use is a legal non-conforming use under s. 45(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act, seeking to strike evidence and adjourn the appeal pending a Superior Court declaration.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it has both the authority and duty to make such determinations as questions of fact.
The Tribunal also granted the appellant's motion to consolidate the appeals regarding the zoning by-law amendment, site plan approval, and s. 45(2) application, finding consolidation would allow for a fair, just, and expeditious hearing.
Tribunal scheduled motions on consolidation and jurisdiction and adjourned the hearing on the merits.
The Tribunal held a status update teleconference regarding appeals related to a proposed biosolid storage facility.
The applicant brought a motion to consolidate the proceedings, while the municipality indicated its intent to bring a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction over certain legal non-conforming use issues.
The Tribunal scheduled the motions to be heard at an upcoming Case Management Conference and adjourned the hearing on the merits to January 2025.
Tribunal amends previous decision to correct typographical error regarding the nature of the appeals.
The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its January 12, 2024 decision regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment refusal and site plan approval failure for a biosolid storage facility.
Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the amendment corrected the first sentence of paragraph one to accurately reflect the nature of the appeals.
Registration of a condominium plan creates new parcels of land subject to omitted assessment under the Assessment Act.
The appellant developer constructed three apartment towers and subsequently registered a condominium plan converting two towers into 330 condominium units.
The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) issued an omitted assessment for the original property, and later issued 331 omitted assessments for the newly created condo units and the remaining multi-residential tower.
The appellant appealed to the Assessment Review Board, arguing MPAC lacked authority under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act because the physical land had already been assessed.
The Board upheld the assessments, finding the condominium registration created new legal parcels of land.
The Divisional Court dismissed the developer's appeal, holding that the Board correctly interpreted 'land' and did not breach procedural fairness.
Tribunal schedules 12-day hearing for appeals regarding a proposed biosolid storage facility.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference to organize appeals by Bartels Environmental Services Inc. concerning the Municipality of West Perth's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a biosolid storage facility.
Settlement discussions between the parties were unsuccessful.
The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video hearing to commence on November 25, 2024, and directed the parties to submit an updated procedural order.
Judicial review of Assessment Review Board decision denying municipal tax refund dismissed.
The applicant sought judicial review of an Assessment Review Board decision denying a municipal tax refund for a hotel property that was shut down for construction.
The applicant claimed relief under the demolition and vacant property provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the applicant failed to properly appeal the 2016 demolition decision and that the 2017 claim failed because the demolition occurred in the prior year.
The court also found no breach of procedural fairness.
Leave to appeal granted to review MPAC's authority to issue multiple omitted assessments under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act.
The moving party, a property developer, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Assessment Review Board regarding the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation's (MPAC) authority to issue multiple omitted assessments under s. 33(1) of the Assessment Act in the same taxation year following a condominium conversion.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding there was reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision on five alleged errors of law, including the interpretation of 'land', the failure to consider whether taxes had already been levied, and the failure to address MPAC's intentionality.
The court also found the issues raised important questions of law meriting appellate review.
Property tax exemption denied because the non-profit housing provider did not fund or manage the relief itself.
The applicant, a non-profit housing corporation providing affordable and rent-geared-to-income housing, sought a declaration that its three properties were exempt from municipal taxation under section 3(1)12(iii) of the Assessment Act.
The respondents conceded the applicant served the poor but argued it was not 'organized for the relief of the poor' as required by the exemption.
Applying binding appellate authority, the court found that because the applicant's operations were fully funded by government subsidies and tenant rents, and its day-to-day management was outsourced to a for-profit entity, it did not provide relief through its own endeavors or funds.
The application was dismissed.
