T.A. Richardson

The Tribunal heard appeals regarding an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBLA) to permit the expansion of an existing place of worship located outside the Urban Boundary within the Provincial Greenbelt Plan Area (Specialty Crop Area).

The appellants argued that the expansion of a non-agricultural use in a prime agricultural area was inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) and did not conform to the Greenbelt Plan's requirement that expansions bring the use more into conformity with the Plan.

The Tribunal found that the subject lands had not been farmed in 90 years, the expansion would occur entirely on the existing property, and there would be no adverse impacts on surrounding agricultural operations.

The Tribunal interpreted the Greenbelt Plan's 'more in conformity' test as applying to conversions of uses, not expansions of existing buildings.

The Tribunal dismissed the OPA appeals, approved the OPA, and allowed the ZBLA appeal, finding the applications consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan, and representing good planning.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its decision issued on January 2, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 14 of the original decision was deleted and replaced to clarify the primary area of disagreement regarding whether the proposed development was properly categorized as residential or seasonal resort recreational development.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a seasonal resort recreational development on lands designated as prime agricultural.

Following initial evidence, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the number of seasonal cottages from 173 to 125, restricted occupancy to April through October, and increased public access to recreational amenities.

The Tribunal approved the revised planning instruments, finding that the seasonal recreational use would not adversely impact nearby agricultural resources, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in the City of Niagara Falls.

The Tribunal granted participant status to six individuals and entities and directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal also determined that a third-party zoning by-law appeal was not dismissed by the transition provisions of Bill 185, as the merit hearing had been scheduled prior to the legislative cutoff date.

Motion dates were scheduled to address the production of documents and resolve the Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference concerning an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a seasonal residential development consisting of 173 cottages.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and confirmed a 13-day hearing commencing in November 2024.

The applicant appealed the County of Haldimand's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a seasonal residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals, noted the parties' openness to mediation, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 13-day hearing.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a municipal election compliance audit, the added parties (the candidates) sought costs against the appellant.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that she was a public interest litigant immune from costs, finding she continued to pursue abandoned and technical allegations on appeal.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $12,600 for the three represented candidates and $1,000 for the self-represented candidate.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of an appeal from a Compliance Audit Committee decision.

The appellant sought a compliance audit of campaign finances for four municipal candidates under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Committee dismissed the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The added parties (the four candidates) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the usual practice of awarding costs to successful parties should apply.

The court rejected arguments that the appellant was a public interest litigant and found the added parties' participation in the appeal was necessary to defend their reputations against public allegations.