Steven J. O’Melia

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its March 14, 2023 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the list of appearances was amended to add S. Kaufman as counsel for three of the parties.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

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

The Tribunal granted Party Status on consent to the Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, noting that 13 issues remained outstanding pending upcoming Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2023.

The applicant sought approval of revised draft plan of subdivision and draft plan conditions, and the issuance of the Phase 2 Order for a residential development in the Town of Milton.

The Tribunal had previously withheld the Phase 2 Order pending the satisfaction of certain conditions, including the registration of private agreements and a restriction on pre-sales until servicing allocation was secured.

Based on uncontested affidavit evidence from a land use planner confirming that these conditions had been met and that all parties consented to the revisions, the Tribunal approved the revised draft plan and conditions, issued the Phase 2 Order, and extended the lapsing date by three years.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Collingwood's Zoning By-law No. 2022-007, which restricts development unless adequate municipal water and wastewater services are available.

The Tribunal granted party status to four entities and participant status to one entity.

A nine-day video hearing was scheduled, and the Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

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

The Tribunal granted party status to Timberworx Custom Homes Inc. and provisional party status to Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues Lists, and an eight-week merit hearing was scheduled to commence in January 2024.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed residential subdivision, the Tribunal scheduled a hearing for the zoning by-law amendment appeal and noted the parties' intent to seek Tribunal-led mediation for the official plan amendment appeals.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to the Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals concerning the Region of Waterloo's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 128.

The order sets out the organization of the video hearing scheduled for November 6, 2023, the requirements before the hearing including the exchange of witness statements and expert reports, and the issues list.

The applicant developer sought to enforce a cost sharing provision in a 1975 subdivision agreement against the respondent municipality, arguing the municipality was required to collect a proportionate share of servicing costs from a new adjacent development.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the cost sharing obligation was only triggered if the new development connected to or benefited from the installed services, which it did not.

The court also dismissed the applicant's alternative claim for unjust enrichment, holding that the subdivision agreement provided a juristic reason for the municipality's benefit.

The Region of Waterloo brought a motion seeking approval of a proposed final revision of the Issues List in the Procedural Order governing the merits hearing of an appeal concerning Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2.

The Region argued that a prior Tribunal decision had made an issue estoppel finding that restricted the appellants from raising certain provincial policy and plan issues.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the prior estoppel decision was binding and had been upheld by the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to submit a joint draft Procedural Order containing an Issues List in accordance with the prior estoppel decision.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit commercial cooking equipment within an existing Estate Winery.

The Tribunal granted party status to abutting neighbours but denied it to others who did not raise legitimate land use planning issues.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the applicant, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, Growth Plan, and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law was amended.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21, which regulates boarding houses and farm worker dwellings.

The parties advised that the Superior Court of Justice recently quashed the related Official Plan Amendment No. 8 and directed the municipality to issue a fresh Notice of Adoption.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die to allow the municipality to fulfill the Court's directions and directed the parties to provide a written update by September 15, 2022.

The appellants appealed the Town of Collingwood's refusal to grant a retroactive heritage permit for painting the masonry of their home, located in a Heritage Conservation District.

The parties reached a settlement after expert evidence confirmed that removing the paint would cause extensive damage to the masonry.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Town to issue the permit, noting that the settlement ensures the integrity of the heritage structure.

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

The Tribunal received updates on topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting ongoing settlement discussions and the impact of a new parking by-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing for the University of Toronto appeal and a further Case Management Conference to address the status of the draft By-law.

The appellant appealed the City of Cambridge's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 185-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement, which included preserving a heritage dwelling and existing trees, and replacing a proposed apartment building with stacked townhouses.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence and the consent of all parties, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the revised zoning by-law and draft plan of subdivision.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The proposed development includes 185 residential units and the conservation of a heritage dwelling.

The Tribunal granted party status to a local resident without objection.

The parties indicated they are working towards a potential settlement, and the Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a five-day video hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seven-storey apartment building, stacked townhouses, and a two-storey office building.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan, Region of Peel Official Plan, and City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle but withholding the final order pending confirmation of a site plan control application consistent with the proposed concept plans.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding an appeal by Joseph and Laura Puopolo against the Region of Waterloo's adoption of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (ROPA 2).

The settlement proposed utilizing the appellants' lands as a stormwater retention pond and outlet facility, freeing up other lands within ROPA 2 for residential development without expanding the urban area.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the Regional Official Plan, allowed the appeal in part, and amended ROPA 2 accordingly.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers against the Municipality of Leamington's Zoning By-law No. 17-21, which relates to minimum standards for boarding houses.

The Appellant advised of a pending court challenge to the related Official Plan Amendment No. 8 and suggested Tribunal-led mediation.

The Municipality requested scheduling a 10-day hearing.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing without a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, deeming it premature, and instead scheduled a second Case Management Conference.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' motion and application challenging the issuance of building permits, the respondent municipality and its Chief Building Officer sought costs.

The applicants argued for a mixed result and that parties should bear their own costs, but the court found the respondents were successful on the majority of issues.

Applying the principles of indemnity and reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondents at $30,000.

The appellants, Jason Geil and Geil Style Enterprises Inc., appealed a finding of contempt for violating a consent order by dumping fill on wetlands.

They argued the motion judge erred by relying on hearsay, making a finding without evidence of the precise timing of the fill, and accepting a late-filed affidavit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the submissions.

The court held that the motion judge relied on firsthand evidence, the precise date of the fill deposit was not material as it occurred after the order, and accepting the late affidavit was within the judge's discretion.

The finding of contempt was entitled to deference.