In Caledon Residences Inc. v. Ontario Land Tribunal, 2025 ONSC 6546, the Divisional Court confirmed that judicial review is not an appropriate means for challenging Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) decisions on questions of law, to which it included matters of procedural fairness, and that instead leave to appeal must be sought.
Background
Sunshine Group made two applications to the Town of Caledon for approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”) and for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”). When the Town failed to render a decision on the applications, Sunshine Group appealed to the OLT pursuant to subsections 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.
Caledon Residences Inc. (“CRI”), the owner of the neighbouring plot of land, sought to impose a cost sharing condition upon any approval of the Draft Plan, with respect to infrastructure it had paid for that allegedly benefited the Sunshine Group’s development. CRI was subsequently added as a party to the Sunshine Group’s appeals.
The appeals were scheduled to be heard on December 9, 2024. However, on December 6, 2024, Sunshine Group and the Town entered into Minutes of Settlement that did not impose CRI’s cost sharing condition. The settlement provided that Sunshine Group would withdraw its Draft Plan appeal and that the Town and Sunshine Group would request the OLT to approve the ZBA instrument set out in the Minutes.
At the hearing, CRI asked the Tribunal to refuse to withdraw the Draft Plan appeal. When the Tribunal accepted the withdrawal, CRI subsequently requested that the Tribunal either withhold its final order on the ZBA approval until a cost sharing agreement was entered into or impose a holding provision on the ZBA approval, which could be lifted once a cost sharing agreement was finalized. The Tribunal rejected both requests in written reasons dated December 24, 2024, holding that conditioning approval of the ZBA on entering a cost sharing agreement was equivalent to requiring two private parties to enter into an agreement, which was outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
CRI then applied for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.