Stanley Frederick Floras

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 17, 2026, and a 14-day hearing on the merits for January 2027.

The parties were directed to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status in appeals concerning an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Canadian National Railway Company and the Stewarttown Community Association, and participant status to an adjacent landowner.

The Tribunal also ordered that the appeals be heard together and set dates for a 19-day merit hearing.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs.

The City sought $27,699.06 and the developer sought $43,176.94, while the appellant argued costs should be fixed at $25,000.00 total.

The Divisional Court noted the appellant's own bill of costs was over $59,000, indicating its reasonable expectations.

The court awarded costs of $25,000.00 to the City and $30,000.00 to the developer, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.

Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.

The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.

The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy appealed a condition of provisional consent imposed by the Town of Mono's Committee of Adjustment that required the payment of a 5% Parkland Levy.

The consent allowed the creation of a new lot with an existing dwelling, leaving the retained lot for the extension of the Bruce Trail.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and removed the condition, finding that the levy was unreasonable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act because the severance did not create a need for additional parkland.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that imposing the levy on a recognized public body whose mandate is to provide public recreational trails was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and local official plans.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a case management conference regarding appeals of a proposed zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision in the Town of Mono.

The order schedules a 17-day virtual merits hearing to commence on September 21, 2026, and sets out the procedural dates and issues list for the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Line 2 Developments Inc. against the Town of Mono for failing to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The applications propose a 349-unit residential development with communal water and sewage systems.

During the CMC, the Tribunal granted participant status to one individual and scheduled a motion brought by the Town to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List by July 11, 2025, to facilitate the scheduling of a future hearing on the merits.

The Bruce Trail Conservancy appealed a condition of provisional consent regarding the creation of a new rural residential lot in the Town of Mono.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued the Procedural Order, setting the hearing dates, filing deadlines, and the issues list, which primarily concerns the appropriateness of a parkland dedication condition.

The appellants appealed the Region of Halton's approval of Official Plan Amendment 50 (OPA 50), a Secondary Plan for the Premier Gateway Employment Area, arguing a planned east-west collector road would divide their lands and preclude proposed warehouse development.

Following the expansion of urban boundaries under Bill 162, the Town of Halton Hills studied an alternative alignment for the collector road, supported by traffic and servicing studies.

The parties reached a settlement modifying OPA 50 to reflect the alternative alignment.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications represented good planning, met all legislative tests, and allowed the appeals in part to approve the modified OPA 50.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party did not provide a costs outline.

The City of Niagara Falls requested an adjournment of an upcoming hearing regarding 2023 planning instruments, arguing the proceeding may become moot due to a prior Tribunal decision that precluded the appellant's appeal of superseding 2025 planning instruments under Bill 185.

The appellant opposed the adjournment.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to cancel the scheduled hearing to allow the appellant time to consider whether to seek a review or appeal of the prior decision, and to avoid potentially unnecessary proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to provide a status update within 60 days.

The City of Niagara Falls brought a motion for directions to determine whether Cytec Canada Inc. had standing to appeal three planning instruments under the Planning Act.

Following amendments by the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024, appeals are restricted to 'specified persons'.

Cytec argued it qualified as an environmental compliance approval (ECA) holder.

The Tribunal found that the plain language of subsection 1(1)(l) of the Planning Act requires the ECA activity to be undertaken on lands within 300 metres of the planning area.

Because Cytec's ECA applied to lands further away, and not to its 'Beechwood Lands' within the 300-metre radius, it did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal ordered that Cytec's appeals were precluded.

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 Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of Halton's approval of Official Plan Amendment 50.

The Town of Halton Hills was granted Party status, and the Regional Municipality of Peel was granted Participant status on consent.

The parties indicated an intention to engage in Tribunal-assisted mediation and requested a second Case Management Conference to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which the Tribunal scheduled for October 2024.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 58-unit residential subdivision in a rural settlement area.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, the zoning by-law amendment was directed, and the draft plan of subdivision was approved subject to conditions.

The Town of Mono brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of its Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment applications without a hearing.

The applications sought to permit a 220-unit townhouse development serviced by a communal wastewater treatment system.

The Tribunal found that the development could not proceed because the Town refused to enter into a Municipal Responsibility Agreement, which is required by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks for such a system.

Concluding that the appellant had no reasonable prospect of success, the Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision to permit a 59-unit residential subdivision.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties requested to convert the previously scheduled hearing into a CMC to allow more time for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, approved an updated Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a new 7-day video hearing for May 2024.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 220-unit townhouse development.

The Town of Mono indicated its intent to bring a preliminary motion arguing the appeals are premature due to servicing issues.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day hearing for the preliminary motion and, without prejudice to the motion's outcome, scheduled a 12-day merit hearing.

A draft Procedural Order and Issues List was appended to guide the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 220-unit townhouse development.

The parties agreed to further discuss the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and expressed willingness to seek Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal ordered a second Case Management Conference and set a deadline for the submission of the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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

The parties agreed to collaborate on policy wording and continue drafting the Procedural Order and Issues List, with a focus on resolving issues related to the GTA West Corridor.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference for July 6, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order by June 22, 2023.