Wayne P. Meagher

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment, which excluded the appellant's lands from a settlement boundary expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to another interested party.

The Tribunal also scheduled a four-day hearing of the merits for January 2025 and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order and issues list.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 59 adopted by the County of Middlesex.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order submitted on consent by the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing for phase one issues and a 5-day hearing for phase two issues, and directed the parties to participate in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by two appellants against the Municipality of Thames Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 27.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a representative of an abutting landowner.

The Tribunal noted a settlement in principle with one appellant and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing for the remaining appeal in February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment #59.

The Tribunal granted party status to Comgord Limited on consent.

The parties requested more time to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the merit hearing until the procedural documents are approved and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for June 6, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit recreational uses and a medical clinic in the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The Tribunal granted a request to replace the individual appellant with the newly incorporated rural community association.

The property owner requested party status and was directed to confirm his intention by a specified date.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by Sifton Properties Limited regarding Official Plan Amendment 14 in the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the list of parties, the issues list, the order of evidence, and a summary of procedural dates leading up to a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 3, 2025.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 14, the respondent municipality sought an adjournment pending the proclamation of Bill 185.

The appellant opposed the adjournment, arguing it might prejudice their appeal if the Bill received Royal Assent prior to a rescheduled conference.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, scheduled a ten-day hearing on the merits, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the failure of the municipality and county to make decisions on a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision, as well as the passage of a comprehensive Zoning By-law.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting a proposed residential development of 522-714 units.

The Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans, representing good planning and the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the Municipality of Thames Centre's Official Plan Amendment No. 27 under section 17(36) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested additional time to scope the issues and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for May 24, 2024, and directed the parties to file the draft Procedural Order and Issues List by May 10, 2024.

This decision arises from the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre's Official Plan Amendment 59.

The Tribunal granted party status to several non-appellant property owners who demonstrated genuine land use planning concerns.

The parties were directed to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in advance of the second Case Management Conference, which was scheduled for May 8, 2024.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan, and Draft Plan of Condominium to permit a 45-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and had appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments subject to agreed conditions.

The applicant appealed the conditions of a draft plan of subdivision imposed by the approval authority.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal addressed a concern regarding the potential lapsing of the draft plan conditions.

The approval authority confirmed it had extended the draft plan approval for two years, resolving the lapsing issue.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a seven-day video hearing for the appeal.

The applicants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The amendments were intended to facilitate the development of two apartment buildings with up to 193 units and a municipal stormwater management pond.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments, as modified by the settlement, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modified amendments.

The applicant appealed the municipal Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to create an infill lot.

At the hearing, the parties presented a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted subject to conditions, and the minor variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, site plan, and draft plan of condominium to permit a 45-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals on consent.

The Tribunal also approved a procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for January 2024.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 45-unit residential infill development for seniors, arguing it interfered with their adjacent development plans by creating a permanent turning circle.

The parties reached a settlement that revised the site plan to ensure access without interfering with the appellant's lot.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised development and draft amended zoning by-law had regard to provincial interests, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend several dates in the Procedural Order for appeals concerning a proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of two 5-storey apartment buildings.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1571145 Ontario Limited and Jim Graham against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The amendments would facilitate the development of two 5-storey apartment buildings.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals be heard together rather than consolidated, scheduled a five-day video hearing, and approved a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Sifton Properties Ltd. against a zoning by-law amendment approved by the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.

The parties indicated they were close to a settlement and requested a written hearing.

However, after the parties failed to respond to subsequent communications from the Tribunal regarding the status of the settlement, the Tribunal ordered the matter adjourned sine die.

The Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for costs against the self-represented appellant following his failure to attend the hearing of his appeal.

The appellant had twice requested adjournments, which were denied, and subsequently failed to appear or provide evidence to support his appeal.

The Tribunal found the appellant's conduct to be unreasonable, frivolous, and in bad faith, noting his failure to withdraw the appeal and his disrespectful written submissions.

The Tribunal awarded costs of $1,200 against the appellant.