Steven J. O’Melia

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Bradley & Company Inc. against the Township of Wellesley's decision on a Zoning By-Law Amendment application.

The amendment seeks to permit a 12-unit stacked townhouse development.

The Tribunal clarified that the appeal falls under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, approved the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a three-day merit hearing to commence on October 2, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Kitchener's Parkland Conveyance By-law No. 2022-101.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and scoped Issues List on consent.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-day hearing of the merits to commence on August 26, 2024.

The appellant appealed the municipality's approval of a zoning by-law amendment that permitted cluster housing dwellings and recognized existing setbacks on the subject property.

The parties reached a settlement to add site-specific criteria to the by-law to address the appellant's concerns.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with provincial policy and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Alan and Tamara Hutchinson against the Municipality of Shuniah's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment, and consents to permit a wellness retreat centre.

The Tribunal granted party status to 19 neighbouring property owners on consent.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on July 8, 2024, by video hearing.

The applicant purchased a property to operate a salvage yard and sought a declaration that its use was a lawful non-conforming use under s. 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act.

The respondent municipality argued that the previous owner had discontinued the salvage yard use, thereby losing the non-conforming status.

The court found that the previous owner had continuously conducted salvage operations as part of its business, maintaining the legal non-conforming use.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's more intensive salvage operation did not constitute a wholly different use that would extinguish the non-conforming status.

The application for a declaration was granted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to receive status updates on the remaining appeals to the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The City provided updates on Phase 7 parking regulations appeals, topic-specific appeals including cemeteries, multi-tenant housing, places of worship, propane storage, and school boards, as well as several site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for May 7, 2024, to receive additional updates and address potential settlements or motions to dismiss inactive appeals.

This was the fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The parties reported substantial progress in settlement discussions and requested a partial Settlement Hearing.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a partial Settlement Hearing for January 25, 2024.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of a 1975 cost-sharing provision in a Subdivision Agreement between a developer's assignee (appellant) and a municipality (respondent).

The appellant sought payment for infrastructure costs from the municipality, arguing that the provision was triggered by a new subdivision on adjacent lands.

The application judge found that the cost-sharing obligation was only triggered if the adjacent lands derived a benefit from the appellant's infrastructure, and no such benefit was proven.

The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, agreeing that the agreement, when read holistically and with commercial sense, required a benefit to be conferred for the cost-sharing to apply.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Stop Petersburg Sand Pit Inc. against the Township of Wilmot's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a gravel pit operation.

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

The Parties advised that a related Aggregate Resources Act licence application is nearing completion and will likely be referred to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered that a second Case Management Conference be scheduled once the referral is confirmed, and directed the Applicant to provide monthly status updates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 79, which introduces the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

The parties requested a revised procedural order with a staggered schedule for document exchange to allow more time for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal approved the revised procedural order, finding that the staggered approach would not prejudice any party and would provide flexibility for continued settlement efforts.

A fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 5, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Kitchener's Parkland Conveyance By-law No. 2022-101.

The City requested a deferral of substantive discussions to allow for the evaluation of recent and pending legislative changes (Bills 23 and 42) to the Planning Act, and to continue settlement discussions with the remaining appellants.

The Tribunal agreed with the proposed strategy and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for February 21, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision dated August 1, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended the appearances list without prior notice to the parties.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals to the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received status updates on various phases and topic-specific appeals, including parking, cemeteries, multi-tenant housing, places of worship, propane storage, and school boards.

Several appeals were noted as withdrawn or resolved.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for the submission of motion materials and written hearings to resolve Phases 3 and 4, as well as Appeal No. 62.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 6, 2023.

The appellant appealed the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal granted a consent order to consolidate the two appeals due to commonality and overlapping issues.

The Tribunal also set dates for a 15-day merit hearing and directed the parties to file a final procedural order and issues list.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential plan of subdivision with a maximum of 655 dwelling units.

The Town argued that the amendment should include provisions for affordable housing by limiting the size of certain units.

The Tribunal found that the Town's Official Plan did not yet contain the requisite policies to compel the provision of affordable housing on a site-specific basis.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, approving the zoning by-law amendment and modifying the conditions of draft plan approval to reflect the increased density, finding it represented good land use planning and would not negatively impact adjacent wetlands.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers against the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21 and Official Plan Amendment No. 8, which relate to minimum standards for boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals on consent of the parties.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on April 15, 2024, by video.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the City of Kitchener's Parkland Conveyance By-law No. 2022-101.

The Tribunal granted party status to two additional entities on consent.

The City requested the establishment of a Common Interest Class under Rule 8.4, which was opposed by the appellants and denied by the Tribunal as premature.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled, and parties were directed to exchange their particularized issues for a draft Procedural Order.

The Appellants sought approvals for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plans of Subdivision to facilitate a large residential development.

The central issue was whether a 14-unit portion of the development (Block 1 Stage 5), which required a private roadway through a Natural Heritage Feature and Area (NHFA), should be permitted.

The Tribunal denied the development of Block 1 Stage 5, finding that the roadway would negatively impact the NHFA's ecological functions and wildlife linkages, rendering it inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal also reviewed various conditions of Draft Plans approval, striking down conditions that unlawfully required the developer to fund non-local services or convey lands for purely environmental purposes without compensation.

The balance of the development was approved in principle, subject to resolving parkland dedication requirements.

The applicant appealed a condition of approval for a draft plan of subdivision imposed by the municipality.

The parties reached a settlement involving revisions to the proposed conditions and a minor change to the draft plan.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised draft plan and conditions represented good planning, were consistent with provincial policies, and conformed to the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised draft plan subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Town of Atikokan to permit a 20-unit transitional housing facility for Indigenous youth, categorized as a group home.

The appellant argued the facility was institutional in nature and incompatible with the residential neighbourhood.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, accepting the applicant's expert planning evidence that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal found the proposed residential use appropriate and noted that site plan concerns would be addressed through municipal processes.