Stephanie Fleming

The Township of Tiny brought a motion under s. 34(31) of the Planning Act to bring into force the unappealed portions of its new comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 22-075.

The Tribunal granted the motion, bringing the unappealed portions into effect and amending the by-law to permit a Mineral Aggregate Resources zone on specific lands in accordance with a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal also scheduled hearing dates for the remaining site-specific and section-specific appeals, including those related to short-term rentals, boathouses, and specific zoning designations.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Victoria Park Village Inc. against the City of Guelph's refusal to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed high-density residential development.

The Tribunal consolidated the two appeals, approved the agreed-upon Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for August 2023.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 12-storey non-profit residential building.

At the first case management conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 9-day merit hearing and directed the parties to finalize a draft issues list.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision regarding minor variances to facilitate the construction of two warehouse buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on amended variances for a reduced minimum yard abutting a residential use and a reduced parking requirement.

The Tribunal found that the amended application required no further notice as it requested less relief.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and noise evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, authorizing the variances subject to conditions, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act and represented good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 2-storey agri-tourism facility on an active organic farm.

The proposed development included overnight accommodation for up to 12 guest rooms to educate the public about organic farming.

The Tribunal found that the proposed 'Agri-tourism Retreat' is a unique concept that meets the intent of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Greenbelt Plan, and the Rural Hamilton Official Plan as an on-farm diversified use.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence regarding land use planning and natural heritage, concluding that the development would not negatively impact agricultural operations or natural heritage features.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, approving the amendments in principle.

The appellant appealed the Town of Caledon's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment relating to driveway widths, trailer parking, and open storage.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the properties at 11 and 33 Perdue Court.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed site-specific amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Region of Peel Official Plan, and Town of Caledon Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon zoning exceptions.

The Appellant brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed its appeal of the City of St. Catharines' Official Plan Amendment No. 26 in full, and sought a stay of the OPA.

The Appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated rules of natural justice, and made errors of law by dismissing the appeal in full when the responding parties had only sought partial dismissal.

The Tribunal found the Appellant failed to establish a convincing and compelling case under Rule 25.7 that the Tribunal made any of the enumerated errors.

The motion for review and request for a stay were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Kitchener's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13 and 16-storey mixed-use building on lands designated Arterial Commercial.

The City and Region opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the planned function of the area and lacked adequate pedestrian and transit infrastructure.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding that the proposed infill intensification was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for an industrial building and outdoor storage area.

The Regional Municipality of Halton was granted party status on consent.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal granted conditional approval of the interim Site Plan, pending the resolution of outstanding conditions, and scheduled a future hearing to finalize the site plan and conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 9-storey mixed-use building and two townhouse blocks.

The municipality opposed the 9-storey building, arguing it did not conform to the 3-storey height limit in the applicable secondary plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, preferring the applicant's planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents good planning by providing appropriate residential intensification on an under-utilized site along a major arterial road.

The Tribunal found the municipality's reliance on the dated secondary plan policies to be overly rigid and unreasonable.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a nine-storey, 216-unit residential apartment building.

The City argued the proposal represented excessive intensification and was incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's evidence, finding the subject property is located in an area in transition and is an appropriate location for higher-density intensification under the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area, will not cause unacceptable adverse impacts, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the planning instruments.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal over the quantum of a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The Tribunal directed that the Town's motion for discovery proceed in writing and scheduled a four-day video hearing for the appeal.

Following an unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal, the responding parties sought costs.

Tweed Farms Inc. sought partial indemnity costs of $36,701.06, arguing the moving party's unreasonable positions and the expedited nature of the proceeding increased costs.

The moving party argued the amounts were excessive.

The court awarded Tweed Farms Inc. $25,875 and 2470689 Ontario Inc. $5,940, finding these amounts reasonable and proportionate.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from an unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal brought by The Corporation of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL).

The responding parties, Tweed Farms Inc. and 2470689 Ontario Inc., sought costs.

Tweed Farms claimed increased costs due to NOTL's abandoned positions, the expedited nature of the motion, and challenges related to virtual hearings during COVID-19.

NOTL argued the claimed amounts were excessive.

The court applied principles of proportionality and reasonable expectations, adjusting counsel rates and acknowledging the impact of NOTL's litigation conduct.

The court awarded Tweed Farms Inc. $25,875 and 2470689 Ontario Inc. $5,940, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake sought leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) regarding appeals of an interim control by-law restricting cannabis-related land uses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as premature.

The court held that there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify departing from the general rule against fragmenting administrative tribunal proceedings by hearing appeals from interlocutory decisions.