Spencer Putnam

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding a proposed below-water mineral aggregate extraction operation, the Ontario Land Tribunal consolidated three related appeals.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nation, recognizing the Crown's duty to consult on matters affecting Aboriginal or treaty rights, and to the Friends of Lanark Highlands as neighbouring landowners.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of an application to amend the Zoning By-law to rezone a property from Tourist Commercial to Residential Shoreline Special Exception.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a single-detached dwelling and two accessory structures with specific height, size, and use restrictions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and directed the Township to amend the Zoning By-law, accepting uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conform to the applicable Official Plans, and represent good land use planning.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the respondent's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment to permit recreational vehicles on Lake Clear.

The Tribunal granted party status to the respondent and participant status to a local property owner.

A four-day merit hearing was scheduled for November 2026, and the Tribunal approved the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The applicants appealed the Township of North Frontenac's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit the construction of a residential dwelling within the influence area of a temporarily closed waste disposal site.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to organize the appeal.

The Tribunal directed revisions to the draft issues list to reflect the statutory tests for a zoning by-law amendment and scheduled a four-day video hearing.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the objector status of two individuals who failed to appear at two case management conferences and did not respond to communications.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion, finding the objection to be frivolous and not in good faith due to the continued absence.

As they were the last remaining objectors, the Tribunal referred the aggregate license application back to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and vacated the scheduled hearing dates.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the United Counties of Leeds and Grenville's Official Plan Amendment 5, which updated the Agricultural Area land use designation.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals and scheduled a second CMC.

The Tribunal also directed three self-represented appellants to provide written statements demonstrating they meet the statutory requirements for standing under s. 17(24) of the Planning Act, as they were not listed as having made prior submissions to council.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a minor variance application seeking retroactive approval for an oversized viewing deck and storage shed built within the required shoreline setbacks of Long Lake.

The applicant argued the oversized deck was necessary for a family member's accessibility needs.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the variances failed the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal preferred the Township's expert evidence that the structures posed ecological risks, circumvented proactive buffer policies, and represented overdevelopment of the shoreline inconsistent with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Skycroft Campground appealed the Township of South Frontenac's refusal of its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a significant expansion of its campsites and cabins.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate the proposed development would have no negative impacts on natural heritage features or their ecological functions.

The Tribunal found the Environmental Impact Study was improperly scoped and methodologically flawed, particularly regarding species at risk such as the Cerulean Warbler and Gray Ratsnake.

Furthermore, the scale of the proposed expansion did not conform to the density and waterfront amenity requirements of the Township's Official Plan.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class A Pit Below Water licence.

Several objectors were granted participant status on consent.

A motion to remove two objectors was granted on consent due to their absence.

A procedural order and issues list were approved, and a four-day merit hearing was scheduled for June 2026.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal under the Aggregate Resources Act for a Class 'A' aggregate licence.

The Tribunal confirmed the objector status of several individuals and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The finalization of the Procedural Order and Issues List was deferred to allow the self-represented objectors time to review the Ministry's file and expert reports, after which they will confirm whether they wish to maintain objector status or change to participant status.

A second Case Management Conference and a seven-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The appellant appealed a municipal by-law that revised the ward boundaries of Loyalist Township to maintain Amherst Island as a separate ward, resulting in a 77% deviation from average ward population parity.

The Tribunal found that the ward boundary review process was fair and that Amherst Island is a distinct community of interest due to its geography and reliance on a ferry.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the 77% deviation from voter parity was unreasonable and not justified by the community of interest principle, as it undermined the overarching principle of effective representation.

The appeal was allowed and the by-law was repealed.

The appellants appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a new single detached dwelling within 500 metres of a former waste disposal site.

The municipality did not call evidence at the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and hydrogeological evidence, the Tribunal found no risk of contamination to the subject property.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The applicants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit a reduced side yard setback for a newly constructed dock.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under the Planning Act and was consistent with provincial policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, subject to conditions agreed upon by the parties prohibiting mooring on the western side of the dock.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to permit a single-detached dwelling and septic system constructed without a permit within 200 metres of a closed landfill.

The appellant argued that his own water sampling demonstrated the well water was safe.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the municipality's expert witnesses, who testified that the appellant's hydrogeological investigation was insufficient to assess potential future impacts from leachate migration.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to demonstrate there would be no negative impacts, and dismissed the appeal.

The Appellant appealed the County of Renfrew's failure to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision for 26 waterfront residential lots.

The primary issue was the adequacy and required upgrade standards for a private access road (Pasco Road) located on an unopened road allowance shared by two adjacent townships.

The Tribunal found that because the two townships could not agree on the standard to which the access road should be upgraded, the application failed to satisfy section 51(24)(e) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal determined the proposed subdivision was premature and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of Kingston's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density, mixed-use development on a contaminated brownfield site.

The proposed development includes the remediation of the site, which features a Provincially Significant Wetland and is adjacent to the Rideau Canal UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The Tribunal found that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the City's Official Plan, as it promotes efficient land use, intensification, and brownfield remediation.

However, the Tribunal did not accept jurisdiction over the capping of the wetland itself, as the PPS prohibits development in such areas, and instead approved the applicant's alternative requested relief.

The applicant appealed the Township's deferral/denial of an application for consent to sever a rural property into three new building lots.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence of the Township's planner, the Tribunal found the proposed severance and conditions were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The claimants sought compensation under s. 26(1) of the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of their property by the respondent municipality for a contaminant attenuation zone.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties agreed that the property may be environmentally contaminated and requested an adjournment to determine its environmental status and prepare appraisals.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to exchange appraisal reports by May 15, 2025, and adjourned the CMC.

The Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Caivan (Perth GC) Limited concerning the failure of the Town of Perth and Lanark County to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications propose the redevelopment of a portion of the Perth Golf Course with approximately 940 dwelling units.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a revised Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to the Merit Hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical omission in its April 24, 2024 decision.

The amendment adds that the Tribunal had received a Participant Status Request from Shelagh Hurley and granted her Participant status.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.