Tom Halinski

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the video hearing scheduled for May 2, 2022, regarding appeals by 2472498 Ontario Inc. for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval in the Township of King.

The order sets out the procedural dates, parties, participants, and the final consolidated issues list.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of York's decision to approve the new Official Plan for the Township of King.

The parties had difficulty agreeing on dates for the phase two hearing due to counsel availability and the potential for some issues to be resolved by Township Council.

The Tribunal scheduled a further status hearing and split the phase two hearing into two parts to accommodate counsel availability and allow parties to devise strategies for the presentation of evidence.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal addressed a request for an adjournment based on a pending disposition letter, confirmed there were no concerns with certain lands remaining within the Lindsay urban settlement boundary, extended the deadline for the Agreed Statement of Facts, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2022.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal over the quantum of a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The Tribunal directed that the Town's motion for discovery proceed in writing and scheduled a four-day video hearing for the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval.

The Tribunal finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties and scheduled a five-day video hearing for February 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the municipality's failure to make a decision on a proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a 51-lot residential subdivision.

The Tribunal finalized a Procedural Order, noted the parties' interest in settlement discussions, and scheduled a five-day video hearing for February 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and various Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal granted a motion for disclosure, allowing information pertaining to servicing capacity to be entered into evidence at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied a request by certain appellants to postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue, directing that the hearing proceed as originally scheduled.

Finally, the Tribunal approved the modified Official Plan Schedules A-2, A-4, and A-5, and finalized the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals by Losani Homes concerning properties in the Town of Grimsby.

The appeals relate to Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, as well as heritage demolition refusals and notices of intention to designate under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal granted party status to Burgess Heritage Group Inc. and participant status to several individuals.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals, directed the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing as well as a second Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the Town of Grimsby's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 5-storey mixed-use building on a site containing a designated heritage building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to a local community group on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and potentially consolidate the appeals with an anticipated heritage application appeal, and set a 14-day hearing for October 2022.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan, Bromont Homes Inc. sought clarification on whether the urban settlement boundary for Lindsay remained a live issue for the upcoming Phase 2 Hearing.

The City and other parties argued the issue was settled and Bromont should have appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found that previous orders explicitly preserved Bromont's right to argue against the boundary adjustment and ordered that the issue will be adjudicated at the upcoming hearing.

The appellant brought a motion to strike several issues from the Issues List attached to the Procedural Order for an upcoming hearing regarding an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant argued that the non-appellant parties and the City were not calling expert evidence to support certain issues.

The Tribunal struck the issues raised by the non-appellant parties as they did not intend to call evidence, but retained the City's geological and environmental issues, noting the City's land use planning witness would address them.

One transportation issue was struck on consent.

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.

Habitat for Humanity Niagara brought a motion for costs against the self-represented appellant, Frank De Luca, after his appeal of a zoning by-law amendment was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant sought $53,647.39 in costs, arguing the appellant failed to comply with the Procedural Order.

The Tribunal found that while the appeal was dismissed, the appellant had acted in good faith, attempted to comply with the process amidst pandemic-related difficulties, and did not conduct himself in an unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious manner.

The motion for costs was denied.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding outstanding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 48.

The Tribunal approved a settlement between Loblaws Properties Limited and the City, modifying urban design policies to provide flexibility for building entrances and facades.

The Tribunal found the modifications represented good planning and were consistent with provincial policies.

A procedural order was also issued for the remaining appeal by Abode Varsity Living Inc. concerning purpose-built student housing policies.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of York's decision to approve the new Official Plan for the Township of King.

The Tribunal received updates on the status of the appeals, noted a change in ownership for one appellant's lands, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a four-week hearing on the merits.

The applicants sought minor variances for height and lot coverage to permit the construction of a new two-storey dwelling with a cabana and pool.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the application, and a neighbour appealed the decision to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and satisfied the four tests for minor variances under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposed dwelling was compatible with the established residential neighbourhood and that the variances were minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Appellant brought a motion to withdraw its property assessment appeals, either as of right under Rule 27 or with leave under Rule 29.

The City of Vaughan and MPAC opposed the withdrawal because the City had issued a Notice of Higher Assessment.

The City also brought a motion for disclosure of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the subject property.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the Appellant's motion to withdraw, finding that the City's notice was valid and precluded withdrawal as of right, and that the Appellant failed to establish grounds for leave to withdraw.

The Board granted the City's motion for disclosure, finding the Agreement of Purchase and Sale relevant to the property's current value and its disclosure proportionate.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $18,000 to each of the responding municipalities.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order rescheduling a hearing regarding the proposed repeal of a heritage designation by-law for a property in Niagara Falls.

Due to the provincial emergency, the hearing was rescheduled to be held by video conference.

The Board also directed the parties to provide joint photographs in lieu of a site visit and set deadlines for document exchange.

The landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision that rejected its application to terminate a tenancy for demolition under s. 50(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act, but granted it for extensive renovations under s. 50(1)(c).

The landlord argued the extensive work, which reconfigured the unit but kept its outer boundaries intact, constituted a demolition.

The Divisional Court upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable to distinguish renovation from demolition based on whether the tenant could exercise a right of first refusal to move back into the unit.

The Court also found the Board had jurisdiction to amend the application to grant relief under s. 50(1)(c).