Tom Halinski

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the procedures leading up to a 9-day hearing scheduled to commence on October 5, 2026.

The hearing concerns appeals by UrbanLink Developments regarding the Town of Lincoln's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit two mixed-use residential buildings with commercial space.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a second single detached dwelling for temporary accommodation on a property in the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The applicant claimed the new structure was a continuation of a legal non-conforming use of a former drive shed as an airplane hangar with temporary living accommodations.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the residential use lawfully existed on November 15, 2001, as required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Township Official Plan.

The Tribunal concluded the new structure was a second residential dwelling, which is not permitted, and dismissed the appeal.

The Beamsville Bench Winery Association (BBWA) brought a motion seeking Party status in appeals concerning the Town of Lincoln's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The developers opposed the motion, arguing BBWA lacked a direct interest and its participation would cause unnecessary duplication and delay.

The Tribunal granted Party status, finding that BBWA had a direct interest due to potential impacts on nearby wineries and specialty crops, had participated in the prior municipal process, and would provide necessary and distinct evidence regarding agritourism and agricultural impacts.

The Tribunal declined to strike BBWA's proposed issues, leaving their merits to be determined at the hearing.

The applicant appealed the refusal of minor variances to permit changes to an approved development, including an additional storey and increased commercial floor space.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, focusing on whether the variances were minor in nature.

Preferring the Township's holistic approach, the Tribunal found that the requested variances would cause stark differences in building design, disturb the character of the development, and result in a building that feels noticeably out of place.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The applicants appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decisions denying a consent to sever and associated minor variances to facilitate the construction of a semi-detached dwelling.

The parties agreed that the severance was appropriate but disputed a proposed condition requiring the applicants to dedicate a private road portion of their property to the Town as a public highway and construct a turnaround facility.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test for consent conditions and found the condition was reasonable, relevant, necessary, and equitable, as it would resolve long-standing safety and access issues related to an adjacent elementary school and benefit the proposed development.

The Tribunal granted the provisional consent subject to the Town's conditions and adjourned the minor variance appeal to allow the parties to revise the requested variances in light of the road dedication.

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a sunroom addition with reduced interior side yard and rear yard setbacks.

Prior to the hearing, the parties agreed to revised variance parameters.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised variances met the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the revised variances were authorized, subject to obtaining approval from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and related Official Plan Amendment No. 88.

The Tribunal received status updates indicating that several site-specific appeals had been resolved, while constructive discussions continued on the remaining city-wide and site-specific appeals.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second multi-day Case Management Conference for March 2026 to further organize the proceedings and establish a Procedural Order for any unresolved issues.

The moving party sought a declaration that a new standalone residential building (a second house on a 53-acre property) was exempt from development charges under s. 2(3.3)1 of the Development Charges Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal interpreted the provision, finding that the exemption applies to a second residential unit within a new building, not to a new standalone building itself.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding that the future dwelling did not qualify for the exemption and development charges were payable.

At the first Case Management Conference for an appeal concerning a proposed mixed-use development, the Tribunal scheduled a written motion to determine the party status of the Beamsville Bench Winery Association.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals but denied it to a fourth due to lack of direct impact.

A nine-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in October 2026.

The appellants appealed a condition imposed by the Town of Fort Erie's Committee of Adjustment on a provisional consent for a severance.

The condition required the submission and approval of a Restoration Plan for a significant woodland on the property.

The appellants argued the condition was unnecessary and disproportionate, relying on a 2018 Environmental Impact Study and a 5-metre setback.

The Town maintained the condition was supported by provincial and local planning policies to protect and restore natural heritage features.

The Tribunal preferred the Town's evidence, finding the 2018 study outdated and the condition reasonable, relevant, and necessary to ensure the long-term health of the woodland.

The appeal was dismissed and the condition upheld.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to establish a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) for the redevelopment of the Centrepoint Mall site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement on a Revised SASP that will guide the future mixed-use redevelopment of the site, including new public streets, a central park, and high-density residential and commercial uses near a planned subway station.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the Revised SASP consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, and allowed the appeal in part to approve the policy.

The Township of King brought a motion seeking a determination that it had jurisdiction under section 34 of the Planning Act to pass By-law 12, which amended its zoning by-law to require applicants to demonstrate no adverse ecological impacts on the Oak Ridges Moraine before certain uses were permitted.

The Appellant argued this amounted to illegal conditional zoning and an attempt to circumvent Bill 23's removal of site plan control for small residential developments.

The Tribunal found that By-law 12's reliance on an extra-statutory conformity review process to crystalize use permissions constituted illegal conditional zoning and an unauthorized attempt to reinstate site plan control.

The Tribunal concluded the Township did not have the authority to pass the by-law.

The Township of King and the Regional Municipality of York brought a motion for directions arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Development Charges Act because the underlying development charge had not been paid prior to the complaint being filed.

The moving parties asserted that the statutory scheme requires a 'payment first' approach.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the plain language of section 20 of the Act does not require payment of a development charge as a precondition to bringing a complaint.

The appeal was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed the lack of a decision by the township and region regarding complaints made under s. 20 of the Development Charges Act.

The appellant argued that the proposed development of an additional single-family dwelling was exempt from development charges.

At the first Case Management Conference, the township argued the appeal was invalid because the appellant had not yet paid the charges or obtained a building permit.

The Tribunal determined that a threshold jurisdictional question must be answered before proceeding to a hearing on the merits and scheduled a written motion for direction.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to grant a conditional development permit for an on-farm diversified use (an event venue) on agricultural lands.

The parties reached a settlement and submitted agreed-upon terms and conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Hearing Officer found the proposed use, subject to the agreed conditions, was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conformed to the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the permit was confirmed with the additional conditions.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered requests for participant status and the consolidation of three appeals relating to a proposed 38-unit residential redevelopment on a property subject to a heritage designation.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several neighbouring property owners on consent.

Finding that the appeals involved the same property, proposed development, and common heritage issues, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals to ensure an efficient and cost-effective hearing.

A procedural order and issues list were also approved.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed four-storey self-storage facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two local residents who raised concerns about the appropriateness of the use and its impact on the community.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2025 and an 11-day Merit Hearing for February 2026.

The appellant requested a hearing date for its appeal of the City of Guelph's Comprehensive Zoning By-law regarding parking requirements.

The City opposed, arguing that one of the issues was already litigated in a recent minor variance appeal and scheduling it would constitute issue estoppel.

The Tribunal directed that the overlapping issue be held in abeyance pending the minor variance decision, and scheduled a written settlement hearing for the remaining agreed-upon issues.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use, the Town of Lincoln requested and was granted party status without opposition.

The parties subsequently informed the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing and directed the filing of supporting materials.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-028.

The parties reached partial settlements, scoping the appeals to specific lands and two policies.

The Tribunal used its powers under s. 34(23.1) of the Planning Act to approve the non-appealed portions of the by-law, bringing them into full force and effect.

The remaining appeals were deferred pending the outcome of a related review application, and a fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled.