Timothy C. Marc

The moving party, the City of Ottawa, sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $25,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court ordered an expedited appeal process due to an administrative error that had delayed the leave motion.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion to deny Party status to the Rockcliffe Park Residents Association (RPRA) in an upcoming merit hearing regarding a minor variance appeal to expand a legal non-conforming duplex.

The Tribunal found that while the RPRA had a direct interest, it would not meaningfully assist the Tribunal because it did not intend to call expert evidence on the planning and heritage issues.

The Tribunal denied Party status, granted Participant status instead, and established the issues list for the merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Ottawa's approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a 25-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident and scheduled a three-day merit hearing to commence on July 3, 2024.

The appellant owner appealed the City of Ottawa's by-law designating their property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The owner intended to demolish the existing c. 1912 house to build two new homes.

The Tribunal evaluated the property against three criteria under O. Reg. 9/06.

While finding insufficient evidence to establish design/physical value or historical/associative value, the Tribunal concluded the property has contextual value as it helps define, support, and maintain the character of the Highland Park area.

The appeal was allowed in part, but the designation was upheld based on contextual value.

The City of Ottawa sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 117.

The City argued the Board erred in law by concluding that an Official Plan cannot be specific with respect to performance standards, such as height limits, and by failing to consider the evidence of the City's witnesses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Board's decision to prefer flexible policies over prescriptive wording in this specific context was reasonable and within its jurisdiction.

The Court also found no error in the Board's treatment of the evidence.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that excluded his lands from the expansion of the urban boundary of the City of Ottawa.

He argued the Board erred in law by imposing an additional noise study condition, accepting the City's noise expert evidence, and awarding zero points for distance to a mixed-use centre.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Board's determinations were findings of fact or mixed fact and law, and there was no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Board's decision.

The City of Ottawa sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that repealed Section 3 of its Comprehensive Zoning By-Law.

The Board had found that the by-law improperly restricted property owners' rights to continue legal non-conforming uses after voluntary repairs or renovations, contrary to section 34(9)(a) of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court determined the applicable standard of review was reasonableness and found no error in the Board's conclusion that the by-law frustrated the normal evolution of legal non-conforming uses.

Leave to appeal was dismissed, though the parties consented to restore certain unrelated subsections of the by-law.