Sylvain R. Rouleau

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's enactment of an Interim Control By-law that restricted uses on its property while the City completed land use studies.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested that the appeal be scoped to the subject property and adjourned sine die.

The adjournment would allow the appellant's concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment application to proceed, which could potentially resolve the issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, scoped the appeal to the subject property, and adjourned the matter sine die, directing the parties to provide a status update within six months.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the prescribed timelines.

Following an adjournment of the merits hearing, the parties reached a settlement in principle.

The Tribunal converted the scheduled appearance into a Case Management Conference, scheduled a settlement hearing for February 18, 2025, and issued procedural directives for the filing of settlement materials.

The applicant brought a motion to separate and defer its site plan appeal from its official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals, and to strike certain issues from the issues list.

The Town brought a cross-motion to strike issues related to heritage demolition, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and to add issues regarding conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together, finding that the site plan details were central to determining the appropriateness of the proposed drive-through use.

The Tribunal also struck the heritage demolition issues, finding it lacked jurisdiction until a heritage permit application was decided by the Town, and allowed the addition of the conformity issues.

This is an appeal of a decision by the Chief Building Official (CBO) of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills regarding building permit fees and development charges.

The Applicant, 2755249 Ontario Inc., sought permits for the conversion and renovation of a former seniors' residence into apartments.

The CBO assessed the units as new construction, leading to higher fees, and subsequently failed to issue a permit for Phase II of the project.

The court found the CBO's decision to categorize the renovation and expansion of existing units as new construction to be unreasonable and incorrect.

The appeal was granted, the CBO's decision was set aside, and specific fee amounts were ordered for both Phase I and Phase II, with a building permit to be issued upon payment.

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 appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to reduce the front yard setback from 7.5 metres to 0.6 metres for a sleeping cabin on a private island.

The Tribunal found that the reduced setback would result in unacceptable adverse visual impacts on the shoreline and neighbouring properties, contrary to the Official Plan's goal of preserving the natural waterfront character.

The Tribunal preferred the municipality's planning evidence and concluded the variance failed all four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Township of Carling sought judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner order requiring disclosure of severance and termination clauses in the employment contracts of several municipal employees.

The Township argued the adjudicator erred in finding the clauses constituted 'benefits' under s. 14(4)(a) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, rather than protected personal information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decision was reasonable, adequately reasoned, and properly distinguished between benefits negotiated in an initial employment contract versus those negotiated post-termination.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Cambridge's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed high-rise development.

The Tribunal scheduled a 20-day merit hearing to commence in September 2025 and a pre-hearing status telephone conference call for June 2025.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference concerning appeals by the Glebe Community Association against the City of Ottawa's Official Plan Amendment No. 19 and Zoning By-law No. 2023-510, which would permit the Lansdowne 2.0 redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Ottawa Sports and Entertainment Group and participant status to a local resident.

A procedural order was approved on consent, and a five-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on October 7, 2024.

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.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals from the City of Brantford's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applicant proposed a 141-unit townhouse development on a former industrial site.

Two adjacent industrial operators, SC Johnson & Son Inc. and Hartmann Canada, requested and were granted party status, citing concerns that the proposed residential density would inhibit their manufacturing operations due to noise and traffic.

The Tribunal scheduled a 20-day hearing on the merits.

The appellant, a hookah lounge, appealed the dismissal of its application to quash a municipal smoking and vaping by-law.

The appellant argued that changes to Schedule A of the by-law, which lists set fines and short-form offence wording, after its enactment and municipal consent, invalidated the by-law.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's decision, holding that the changes to Schedule A were made by the Regional Senior Justice under the authority of the Provincial Offences Act to establish set fines, which is a judicial function, and did not alter the substance of the by-law's prohibitions.

The court found Schedule A was a placeholder and its changes did not invalidate the by-law.

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 Tribunal approved a settlement resolving Phase 2 and Phase 3 of appeals concerning Official Plan Amendment No. 32 (OPA 32) for the Southwest Georgetown Lands in the Town of Halton Hills.

The settlement modifies OPA 32 to establish a secondary plan permitting approximately 9,300 dwelling units, commercial and institutional uses, and a transportation network.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified OPA 32 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modifications, and the related private official plan amendment appeals were dismissed.

The appellants appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 155 by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the Region of York.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to several entities on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to allow outdoor storage on the subject property for a temporary period of three years.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the conditions agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a consent application to create a new residential water access lot on an island property.

Several neighbours brought a motion for party status, which the Tribunal dismissed, granting them participant status instead.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed consent, subject to conditions implementing an Environmental Impact Study and zoning requirements, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and provisional consent was granted.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the replacement of a legal non-complying residential dwelling on Morlock Island.

At the case management conference, the parties presented a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Township's Official Plan, noting that the development would have no negative impact on significant natural heritage features.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application for a declaration that their current use of lands was a legal non-conforming use under the Planning Act.

The application judge found that the use had changed significantly from the prior legal non-conforming use and that the appellants had abandoned the prior use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's factual findings and her conclusion that the appellants failed to establish a continuing legal non-conforming use.

The court also confirmed the admissibility of property complaints as factual matters from records kept in the ordinary course of business.