Steven J. O’Melia

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a 69-unit residential development, the Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation requested party status to address flood plain protection issues.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing it would duplicate efforts, while the Town and County supported it.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Foundation, finding it had key interests and its intended expert evidence was necessary.

Participant status was also granted on consent to three individuals.

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

Multiple appeals were brought under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act regarding the adoption of a new town-wide Official Plan by the Town of Collingwood, as approved by the County of Simcoe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four requesting entities without objection.

The Tribunal deferred three requests for party status until the next CMC or until an Issues List is formalized, to allow the proposed parties to identify which issues they will shelter under pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A second CMC was scheduled to consider the deferred requests and further organize the appeals.

This was the first Case Management Conference for an appeal concerning the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 19-unit townhome development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals.

The Tribunal also ordered that this appeal be heard together with a related official plan amendment appeal at a settlement hearing scheduled for March 12, 2025.

The parties sought direction from the Tribunal regarding unresolved issues in implementing a previous decision that partially approved draft plans of subdivision and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal clarified that its previous decision did not deny all potential development of Block 5, Stage 4, and therefore the existing Zone Change (ZC) zoning should remain.

The Tribunal also approved the appellants' broader wording for an easement over Block 6, Stage 4, and confirmed that the conditions of approval should not compel the appellants to reach a specific agreement with the City regarding the conveyance of lands for infrastructure.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to receive status updates on multiple remaining appeals against the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on various site-specific and topic-specific appeals, noted several withdrawals and ongoing settlement discussions, and scheduled a further case management conference for May 2025.

The Town of Collingwood brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. regarding a proposed 69-unit residential development.

The Town argued the appeals had no reasonable prospect of success due to a potential Ministry of Transportation bypass and concerns from the local conservation authority regarding a proposed watercourse crossing.

The Tribunal found that the potential bypass was not a 'planned corridor' under the Provincial Planning Statement and that the conservation authority's concerns did not render the appeals hopeless.

The Tribunal also denied the Town's alternative request to phase the hearing, finding that a single comprehensive hearing would be more efficient.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The appellant appealed the municipality's development charges by-law, arguing it places a disproportionate share of charges on the greenhouse industry.

At the request of the parties, the scheduled merit hearing was converted to a case management conference to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second case management conference and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order and issues list if a settlement is not reached.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the parties' costs submissions following an appeal.

The court determined that it was not an appropriate case for costs and, accordingly, made no order for costs of the appeal.

The applicants appealed the Municipality of Shuniah's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and its failure to make a decision on Consent applications, to permit the creation of two new lots and the development of a wellness retreat centre.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development has regard for provincial interests, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario and the municipal Official Plan.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding rural and shoreline residential area and that environmental features would be appropriately protected through a 30-metre buffer.

The appellants appealed under section 58(5) of the Drainage Act, alleging that the respondent municipality failed to proceed with reasonable dispatch with the construction of the Zettler Municipal Drain after passing the provisional by-law.

The Tribunal found that the municipality's engineer had submitted the report and the municipality had tendered the project prematurely, before obtaining necessary environmental permits from the Saugeen Valley Conservation Authority and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The Tribunal ordered the municipality to apply for the required permits without delay and to amend the engineer's report if required by the conservation authority.

The appellants, Fredrick and Patricia Kentner, appealed the summary dismissal of their first appeal to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, which concerned convictions and a sentence for environmental offences related to unlawful fill operations.

The appeal was based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by their paralegal and errors in the original conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no ineffective assistance as the appellants' failure to pay fines (a mandatory condition for appeal) was a deliberate choice unrelated to the paralegal's conduct, and a waiver application would have had no prospect of success.

The court also found no merit in the conviction appeal, affirming the trial judge's reliance on regulatory maps for jurisdiction, and no basis to interfere with the sentence, which included a $25,000 fine and a property rehabilitation order.

The applicant appealed the Township of Woolwich Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to create a new residential lot.

The parties reached a settlement that included an easement for a septic attenuation zone and emergency access due to flood line concerns.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal respects environmental features and heritage attributes, and allowed the appeal, authorizing the variances and granting provisional consent.

The applicant appealed the Town of Collingwood's refusal of applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit a 69-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant requested a six-week hearing be scheduled.

The Tribunal found that there were too many indeterminate matters, including a proposed bypass that may affect the development, and instead scheduled a second Case Management Conference to update the status of the appeals and finalize the procedural order.

The appellant appealed the Township's passing of a zoning by-law that permitted a maximum of eight townhouse units, seeking to permit twelve stacked townhouse units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to amend the zoning by-law to permit a maximum of ten stacked townhouse units.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a decision issued on July 22, 2024.

The amendment clarified the upcoming hearing event information regarding a Case Management Conference and a Merit Hearing scheduled for November 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The City provided status updates on Phase 3, 4, and 7 appeals, as well as various topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting several withdrawals and ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal ordered a further Case Management Conference for November 2024 and scheduled a three-day merit hearing for a specific site appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 21, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal added the word 'maximum' to a section of the attachment regarding lot coverage.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Essex and the Municipality of Leamington regarding boarding houses and farm worker housing.

The parties reached a settlement that modified the amendments to remove pedestrian connection requirements, adjust occupancy thresholds for boarding houses, and clarify zoning for off-site farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the modified amendments are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to the applicable Official Plans, and represent good planning by supporting the agricultural sector and ensuring safe housing for farm workers.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal from the refusal of consent and minor variance applications by the Township of Woolwich Committee of Adjustment.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent following a case management conference regarding appeals by Alan and Tamara Hutchinson.

The appellants seek an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Consent to permit the creation of two new lots for a wellness retreat centre in the Municipality of Shuniah.

The order sets out the procedural steps, issues list, and order of evidence for a five-day video hearing scheduled to commence on July 8, 2024.