Thomas A. Richardson

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce a side yard setback from 6 metres to 1.5 metres for a covered porch on a reconstructed cottage.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and would have minimal impact on neighbouring properties.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in the amount of $5,000, with entitlement to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The respondent municipality brought a motion to dismiss the appellants' appeals under s. 48(1) and s. 54(1) of the Drainage Act regarding the Wignell Municipal Drain.

The Tribunal found that the proposed improvements to the drain were being undertaken pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act, which does not require a petition from landowners.

The Tribunal concluded that the s. 48(1) appeal did not meet the statutory criteria and dismissed both appeals without a hearing, granting the appellants participant status instead.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on April 7, 2025.

The hearing concerns appeals related to the City of Niagara Falls' Employment Lands Strategy, a residential plan of subdivision, and associated official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The applicant appealed the City of Port Colborne's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a six-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement that included additional visual screening and privacy measures.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies, conforming to local official plans, and representing good planning by encouraging intensification and housing diversity.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Welland's refusal to approve an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the construction of 69 stacked townhouse units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, and the City supported the applications.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with provincial policies, representing good land use planning and appropriate residential intensification.

The appeal was allowed and the amendments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Phelps Homes Ltd. and JTG Holdings Ltd. against the Township of West Lincoln's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 63.

The Tribunal granted party status to several landowners and participant status to a local citizens group member.

The parties agreed to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a 19-day merit hearing to commence in June 2024, along with a second Case Management Conference in February 2024.

The Town and an intervenor association brought motions for costs against the owners after the owners withdrew their objections to notices of intention to designate heritage attributes under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The withdrawal occurred five weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to award costs in a proceeding even if the matter was withdrawn before a hearing on the merits.

However, applying the high threshold for costs under Rule 23.9, the Tribunal found that the owners' conduct in withdrawing the objections and their stated reasons for doing so were not clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motions for costs were dismissed.

The Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Save Our Rand Estate Association brought motions for costs against the Owners after the Owners withdrew their objections to Notices of Intention to Designate under the Ontario Heritage Act shortly before the scheduled hearing.

The moving parties argued the late withdrawal and the Owners' conduct throughout the proceeding were unreasonable and an abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that while it has jurisdiction to award costs even when a matter is withdrawn prior to a hearing, the Owners' conduct did not meet the high threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motions for costs were dismissed.

The parties requested an adjournment at the commencement of a two-day merit hearing concerning a minor variance appeal, indicating that a settlement was imminent but required further due diligence.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, noting the complexity of the case, and scheduled a new two-day merit hearing out of an abundance of caution in case the settlement does not fully materialize.

The appellant appealed a minor variance application seeking relief from Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) setbacks to build a residential dwelling.

During the hearing, it became apparent that the appellant relied on an outdated zoning by-law and sought to change the requested relief mid-hearing.

Due to these material issues and misunderstandings, the Tribunal converted the hearing into a Case Management Conference and ordered procedural steps, including the exchange of revised expert witness statements and sketches, before rescheduling the merit hearing.

The appellant appealed the Town of Fort Erie Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny a minor variance application for a property.

The application sought variances for rear yard setback, flood elevation setback, and accessory structure height to permit the expansion of a detached dwelling and construction of an accessory building.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the Town reached a settlement, but a neighbouring property owners' association opposed it, requesting an additional condition to restrict the dwelling's use.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and were consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal rejected the association's proposed condition, finding it outside the intent of the Zoning By-law, and allowed the appeal subject only to the condition agreed upon by the appellant and the Town.

The Appellant brought a motion requesting a review of a prior Tribunal decision that dismissed its appeal of the City of St. Catharines' Official Plan Amendment No. 26 in full, and sought a stay of the OPA.

The Appellant argued the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction, violated rules of natural justice, and made errors of law by dismissing the appeal in full when the responding parties had only sought partial dismissal.

The Tribunal found the Appellant failed to establish a convincing and compelling case under Rule 25.7 that the Tribunal made any of the enumerated errors.

The motion for review and request for a stay were dismissed.

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 applicant brought an application to quash a resolution and by-law passed by the respondent municipality to conditionally appoint a member to fill a potential council vacancy.

The vacancy was anticipated because a sitting councillor was running in a provincial election.

The court found that the Municipal Act requires a vacancy to actually exist and be declared before an appointment can be made.

The resolution and by-law were quashed for illegality as they were passed without jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 26, which converted certain employment lands to alternative uses.

Several parties brought motions to dismiss the appeal under section 17(45) of the Planning Act, arguing that the appellant's issues were statute-barred because the notice of appeal failed to explain how the decision was inconsistent with or failed to conform to provincial plans, as required by section 17(37.1).

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the notice of appeal lacked the required explanations and that the appellant could not expand its appeal beyond the initial submission.

The Tribunal granted the motions and dismissed the appeal without a full hearing.

A third and final Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of an official plan amendment, zoning by-law, and plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal confirmed that the hearing will proceed by video, as in-person hearings cannot be accommodated.

The applicant withdrew a request to introduce expert evidence-in-chief exclusively through written statements, resolving the final procedural issue.

The 15-day video hearing will proceed as scheduled.

A third Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law.

The parties advised the Tribunal that they are continuing efforts to reach a resolution and have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits and directed that mediation be scheduled as early as possible before the witness statement deadline.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment permitting a gas bar use.

The appellant, an adjacent property owner, appealed based on concerns regarding the adequacy of a private sanitary sewer system.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order with amendments and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 26, which redesignates employment lands for alternative uses in St. Catharines.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to several applicants.

As mediation was deemed unlikely to resolve the issues by most parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 15-day hearing.