Steven Ferri

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 1912900 Ontario Inc. against the Town of Milton's passing of By-law 107-2025, a housekeeping amendment that altered the definition of a lot.

The parties advised that they were in settlement discussions and requested that the matter not be scheduled for a hearing.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter pending the outcome of negotiations and directed the parties to provide a written status update.

The Township of King brought a motion seeking a determination that it had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Planning Act to pass By-law 12, which amended its zoning by-law to require applicants to demonstrate no adverse ecological impacts on the Oak Ridges Moraine before certain uses were permitted.

The Appellant argued this amounted to illegal conditional zoning and an attempt to circumvent Bill 23's removal of site plan control for small residential developments.

The Tribunal found that By-law 12's reliance on an extra-statutory conformity review process to crystalize use permissions constituted illegal conditional zoning and an unauthorized attempt to reinstate site plan control.

The Tribunal concluded the Township did not have the authority to pass the by-law.

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 10-storey commercial building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal also scheduled a seven-day merit hearing for February 2026 and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-028.

The parties reached partial settlements, scoping the appeals to specific lands and two policies.

The Tribunal used its powers under s. 34(23.1) of the Planning Act to approve the non-appealed portions of the by-law, bringing them into full force and effect.

The remaining appeals were deferred pending the outcome of a related review application, and a fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry proposed to transfer an aggregate licence from the objector (the current licensee) to the applicant (the landowner) after the extraction agreement between them expired and the pit sat dormant for over 20 years.

The objector requested a hearing, arguing the transfer should be subject to a condition requiring the applicant to pay $750,000 in compensation for the economic value of the licence.

The Tribunal found that while an aggregate licence has an economic value tied to the remaining resource, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act or the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to attach a condition requiring financial compensation to a licence transfer.

The Tribunal held that resolving financial disputes between private parties is not necessary or incidental to its mandate of managing aggregate resources.

The Tribunal directed the Minister to carry out the transfer without conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held following a settlement of appeals regarding a proposed subdivision.

The parties disputed whether shared or individual driveway culverts should be used, leading the City to refuse to clear draft plan conditions.

The Tribunal tentatively scheduled a written motion to resolve the issue and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order.

When the parties failed to confirm their intention to proceed by the deadline, citing ongoing settlement discussions, the Tribunal released the reserved motion date.

The appellants appealed the Township of King's Urban and Rural Zoning By-laws.

The parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Tribunal approved site-specific modifications to the Urban ZBL for the Via-Ru Lands, changing the zoning from 'Future Use' to 'Residential Future'.

The Tribunal also scoped and adjourned the Bushland appeal and dismissed the Ontario appeal, as requested by the parties.

The appellants appealed the Region's failure to make a decision on their complaint regarding an additional development charge.

The Region had initially assessed and collected a development charge at a discounted industrial rate, certified the payment, and issued a building permit.

Months later, the Region issued a notice of reassessment for an additional $13.7 million, claiming the discounted rate was applied in error because the building would be used as an Amazon fulfillment centre.

The Tribunal held that under the Development Charges Act and the Region's DC By-law, the Region is barred from imposing an additional development charge or correcting an alleged error after the charge has been assessed, collected, certified, and the building permit issued.

The appeal was allowed.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by four landowners against the Township of King's new comprehensive Zoning By-Law 24-028.

The parties agreed to categorize the grounds of appeal into three main groups, with some issues to be deferred pending the outcome of a related jurisdictional review in another proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to allow the parties further time to scope the issues, potentially resolve minor site-specific corrections, and address pending party status requests from two citizens' groups.

The applicant sought costs of $445,375.56 against the City following the settlement of a planning appeal.

The applicant argued the City unreasonably delayed delivering the appeal package contrary to the Planning Act and engaged in other unreasonable conduct during settlement negotiations.

The Tribunal found the City's 75-day delay in delivering the appeal package was clearly unreasonable and awarded $2,500 in costs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the balance of the costs claim, finding the City's conduct during negotiations did not meet the high threshold for costs under Rule 23.9 and the applicant failed to particularize the costs associated with the alleged misconduct.

The municipality brought a motion during a Case Management Conference requesting that the uncontested portions of its new comprehensive zoning by-law be deemed to have come into force pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act.

Several appellants had filed appeals regarding specific properties.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal granted the motion in part, bringing the by-law into force for all areas except those lands specifically subject to the ongoing appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated July 4, 2024.

The amendment corrected the date of the Draft Plan referenced in the order approving the plan of subdivision.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate the redevelopment of a former golf course into a 44-lot residential subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement with revised plans.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised applications were consistent with provincial policies and represented good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant brought a motion to determine whether its proposed redevelopment of a former golf course into a 44-lot residential subdivision is located within a 'Settlement Area' under the Growth Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, and the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan.

The City argued that the lands were not delineated as a Settlement Area in its Official Plan and therefore did not meet the definition.

The Tribunal found that the definition of 'Settlement Area' should be read disjunctively, and that the subject property qualifies as a Rural Settlement because it is a built-up area where development is concentrated, has a mix of land uses, and is identified in the Official Plan.

The motion was granted, and the issue was removed from the Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to redevelop a former golf course.

Following unsuccessful settlement negotiations, a status hearing was held to reschedule the merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a new seven-day video hearing and directed the parties to file a revised procedural order and issues list following the issuance of a pending motion decision.

The appellant brought a motion seeking the Tribunal's approval of a settlement agreement with the Township of King regarding site-specific modifications to the new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2022-053.

The modifications change the zoning of the subject property from 'Future Use' to 'Hamlet Residential – Future' to provide clarity for future residential lot creation, consistent with the Official Plan.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications represent good land use planning, are consistent with provincial policies, and are in the public interest.

The motion was granted and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry referred the proposed transfer of an aggregate licence to the Tribunal after the current licensee objected.

On a motion to qualify expert witnesses, the Tribunal considered objections to two proposed experts based on alleged conflicts of interest.

The Tribunal qualified both experts, finding that the aggregate industry executive's general financial interest in the industry did not disqualify him, and that the Ministry employee's role was sufficiently detached to allow him to provide impartial evidence.

Two other proposed witnesses were conceded to be factual witnesses only.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of King's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2017-66.

The Tribunal ordered that issues raised by 611428 Ontario Limited regarding the 'Future Use' zone in the Township's Rural By-law (ZBL 2022-053) be heard together with the subject appeals.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were approved, and a four-day video hearing was scheduled for November 2024.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of King's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2017-66, the Tribunal considered a request to hear the appeals together with certain issues raised in a separate appeal of the Township's Rural Zoning By-law No. 2022-053.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to hear the overlapping issues regarding 'Future Use' zones together.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were approved, and a four-day video hearing was scheduled.

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.