Thomas Joseph Hanrahan

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit the development of seven townhouse dwellings.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontradicted expert planning evidence supporting the proposed amendments.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding the amendments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with the applicable Official Plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to neighbouring landowners to operate a dog kennel.

The respondents challenged the applicant's standing due to recent legislative amendments limiting third-party appeal rights.

The Divisional Court found the applicant had private interest standing because the variance directly affected their ability to build on their own land.

The Court held the Committee's decision was unreasonable as it failed to articulate or apply the four-part statutory test for a minor variance and provided inadequate reasons.

The application was granted and the matter remitted to the Committee for a rehearing.

The respondent, having been successful in the main application for judicial review, sought partial indemnity costs of $45,000.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded due to the public interest exception, or alternatively, that the amount claimed was excessive.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest argument, noting the applicant had a personal financial motivation for the proceeding.

However, the court agreed the claimed amount was excessive for a half-day hearing on a narrow issue, and fixed costs at $10,000 all-inclusive.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by First Ontario Street Ltd. against the City of St. Catharines' refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a 33-storey mixed-use building while retaining an existing heritage building.

The order sets out the hearing dates, procedural deadlines, and the issues list for the upcoming four-day video hearing.

The appellants appealed the Township of West Lincoln's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 63, which implements a Secondary Plan for lands added to the Smithville Urban Area.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a partial settlement resolving numerous issues.

The Township brought a motion to approve the partial settlement, supported by uncontested expert planning affidavit evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the modified OPA 63 save for scoped site-specific policies, and scheduled a merit hearing for the remaining issues.

The applicants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of their consent and minor variance applications to sever a residential property in Welland.

The proposed severance would create a retained lot with reduced frontage and an existing garage without a principal dwelling.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the applications met the four tests for a minor variance, were consistent with provincial policies, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed, and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The applicant, a municipal councillor, sought judicial review of a municipal council decision reprimanding him and suspending his pay for 30 days due to his participation in the Freedom Convoy protest.

The applicant argued the council failed to consider his section 2 Charter rights when imposing the penalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the council was bound by the Integrity Commissioner's finding of misconduct, and any Charter arguments were relevant only to the Commissioner's finding, not the council's subsequent discretionary penalty decision.

The appellant appealed the Town's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted the severance of an existing lot to create a new residential lot.

The appellant raised concerns regarding lot coverage, setbacks, privacy, and shadowing.

The Tribunal preferred the expert land use planning evidence provided by the Town and the applicant, which demonstrated that the amendment was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Town's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and its failure to make a decision on a Consent application, to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement supporting the proposal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to regional and local official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed, the amendments were approved, and provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for an appeal concerning a consent application to create two new lots for residential development in the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The appellant appealed the City of Welland Committee of Adjustment's decision to approve minor variances for the construction of a two-storey detached garage.

The applicant sought relief for maximum height, lot coverage, and rear yard setback.

The Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances were minor, maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances subject to a lot grading condition.

Niagara HP Properties Inc. brought a motion to dismiss Matt Snieder's appeal of an Official Plan Amendment that permitted a 24-unit residential development in the City of Welland.

The appellant argued the development did not blend with surrounding homes and that provincial policy only encouraged growth on grey and brown lands.

The Tribunal found the appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds, was based on factually incorrect assumptions about provincial policy, and was frivolous and made for the purpose of delay.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed without a hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the Tribunal addressed procedural matters including a request for an updated market study.

The Tribunal declined to order the Applicant to prepare a new market study, instead allowing the Appellant to file evidence on changes in market conditions since 2018.

The Tribunal also confirmed directions for filing evidence on changes to the Provincial Policy Statement and scheduled a one-day video hearing for final oral submissions.

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.

The applicant appealed the Town of Fort Erie's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a self-storage facility.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development on vacant lands within an existing urban area promotes efficient land use and conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the amendments, finding the proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit three single detached dwellings on a private roadway.

The applicant called two expert planning witnesses, including the Town's Manager of Planning under summons, who both provided uncontested evidence supporting the revised proposal.

The Tribunal found the proposed infill development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and local official plans, as it promotes efficient use of land and existing infrastructure.

The appeal was allowed and the municipality was directed to amend the zoning by-law.

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.

In an appeal concerning an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a medical centre, the applicant brought a motion for directions to exclude three affidavits filed by the appellant Medical Centre.

The Tribunal found that the issues of conformity with the regional and municipal official plans were relevant, and therefore the affidavits addressing those issues were relevant and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered that the affidavits, along with responding affidavits from the Town and the applicant, be admitted as evidence for the hearing of the merits.

The appellants appealed the City of Thorold's refusal of their applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws to permit a hockey training facility in an existing accessory building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.