Wayne Fairbrother

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals/groups.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion hearing to determine the validity of one of the appeals in light of Bill 185.

The Tribunal also deferred a request to bifurcate the hearing until the issues list is finalized, and directed the parties to submit a finalized issues list and draft procedural order prior to the next Case Management Conference.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals against the District Municipality of Muskoka's approval of the Township of Muskoka Lakes' new Official Plan, several community groups and individuals requested party or participant status.

Applying the Oakville Factors and the requirements of the Planning Act, the Tribunal granted party status to four cottage and stakeholder associations, finding their involvement would assist in the effective adjudication of the issues without causing undue prejudice.

The Tribunal denied party status to two individuals, finding their concerns were either site-specific or better suited for participant status, and granted participant status to one of them.

Sifton Properties Limited appealed the County of Brant's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential subdivision with neighbourhood commercial uses.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the County Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Draft Plan of Subdivision and withholding the final order for the Zoning By-law Amendment pending the fulfillment of a condition related to an Official Plan designation change.

The appellants appealed the Township of Clearview's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 06-54.

Following a settlement, the parties proposed a Zoning By-law Amendment to zone the subject properties, which were historically used for aggregate extraction, to the Extractive Industrial Zone.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the amendment.

The appellant appealed the County of Brant's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled an 18-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a revised procedural order.

The parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and the potential for future Tribunal-assisted mediation.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted Party status to Lafarge Canada Inc. and two local residents, and Participant status to two other residents.

The Tribunal declined to set hearing dates until the issues list is finalized, ordering a further Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City's passage of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, which imposed density restrictions and ground-floor retail requirements on its properties.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to exempt the subject lands from the density restrictions, subject to a holding symbol for servicing capacity, and to delete the requirement for small inset stores within single-use retail frontages.

Relying on uncontested planning affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the refusal of a development permit application to reconstruct a sideroad from seasonal to year-round use.

During a pre-hearing conference, the Township of Clearview requested a six-month adjournment because the proposed road work would encroach into wetland areas, requiring an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

All parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Officers granted the adjournment and vacated the previously scheduled hearing dates to allow the amendment process to take place.

The Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office issued a procedural order following a pre-hearing conference regarding appeals from the refusal of a development permit application to reconstruct 26/27 Sideroad.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, including dates for the continuation of the pre-hearing conference, motions, and the main hearing, as well as requirements for witness lists, expert meetings, and the exchange of evidence.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal to issue a development permit for road reconstruction, several individuals and organizations requested party, participant, or presenter status.

The Hearing Officers granted the requests, finding that the applicants met the respective requirements under the Rules of Practice, as their interests could be directly and substantially affected by the hearing and they had a genuine interest in the subject matter.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines in a Renewable Energy Approval.

The appellant later sought to withdraw this portion of the appeal and amend a condition regarding Blanding's Turtle as part of a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal regarding the turbines but adjourned the hearing on the settlement agreement amending the condition until related appeals by other parties were resolved, to avoid conflicting outcomes.

The Moving Parties sought a stay or adjournment of an Environmental Review Tribunal hearing regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind project, pending the outcome of their application for judicial review in the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal determined the request was for an adjournment rather than a stay.

Applying its Rules of Practice, the Tribunal found that an adjournment was not justified, as the judicial review would not necessarily resolve the issues before the Tribunal, and delaying the hearing would prejudice the appellant and not serve the public interest in timely proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

The added parties brought a motion for a stay of the proceedings or an adjournment of the hearing regarding the refusal of a Renewable Energy Approval for two wind turbines.

The Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed the motion, with reasons to follow.

At a preliminary hearing regarding an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, several entities requested party or presenter status.

The Environmental Review Tribunal granted party status to the Municipality of Prince Edward County and two individuals with cultural heritage expertise, finding they had a genuine interest and would make relevant contributions.

The Tribunal denied party status to the Alliance to Protect Prince Edward County, as its interest was purely procedural and could be accommodated without formal party status.

The Architectural Conservancy of Ontario was granted presenter status.

The Tribunal also set the procedural schedule for the hearing.