July 31, 2025
1. Introduction
Municipal governance evolves with the communities it serves. Bylaws are regularly updated to reflect shifting demographics, social trends, and emerging challenges. From modernizing zoning to aligning with new environmental standards, these changes help ensure local policies stay relevant and responsive to community needs. The Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) handles matters involving planning and development, environmental and heritage protection, property value and compensation, municipal fiscal issues, and other related concerns. The OLT was established on June 1, 2021, according to the authority granted under Section 2 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.
The OLT's broad jurisdiction and limited capacity have led to significant delays in adjudication, a situation that urgently calls for immediate and systematic improvements. The volume of appeals directed to the OLT reflects deeper issues in municipal planning and permitting processes, highlighting the need for systematic improvements well before cases reach the OLT. As of March 2024, the OLT had 1,490 pending cases, representing an 8% increase since 2021, and failed to meet its targets, issuing only 35% of decisions within 30 days. This underperformance not only indicates the Tribunal’s inefficiency but also directly impacts local planning goals, leading to development delays and eroding trust in its ability to support local planning objectives. For instance, a delay in a zoning decision can stall a housing project, affecting the community's housing needs. The decisions of the OLT have a significant impact on the future of our communities, and it is crucial that these decisions are made in a timely and efficient manner.
2. Historical Context and Evolution of the Tribunal
From OMB to OLT: A Legacy of Centralization
What began as the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in 1906 has evolved into the OLT, yet despite many name changes and structural tweaks, the core mandate remains the same: a centralized, unelected body with the final say on local planning decisions. A longstanding concern associated with the OMB, one that has persisted and, some argue, intensified under the OLT, is the perception that developers receive preferential consideration. This is partly because their proposals often align closely with provincial planning goals, such as increasing housing supply and intensifying development. Meanwhile, municipalities tend to advocate for local interests in the adjudication process, reflecting the will of communities across Ontario (fairly or unfairly).
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) (1906–2018):
The OMB, initially established in 1906 as the Ontario Railway and Municipal Board, is one of the oldest administrative tribunals in the province of Ontario. It was created to oversee railways and municipal affairs. In 1932, it was renamed the OMB as its mandate shifted more fully to municipal and planning matters rather than railway regulations. Over time, the OMB evolved into a quasi-judicial board with the authority to adjudicate planning disputes and override local council decisions on zoning and planning matters. This placed the OMB at odds with municipalities and residents, who criticized the Board for prioritizing developer interests and provincial planning goals over local autonomy. While these concerns are not universally accepted as valid, they played a significant role in driving subsequent reforms to Ontario’s land-use planning system. From these concerns about democratic accountability and fairness in land-use decisions, the OMB was ultimately dissolved in 2018 as part of broader efforts to reform Ontario’s land-use appeal system.
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) (2018–2021):
The LPAT was established by the Liberal Government under Premier Kathleen Wynne on April 3, 2018, through the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act (Bill 139), replacing the OMB to provide a more defence-based, municipal-oriented appeal body. The Local Planning Appeal Act 2017 created the LPAT. The LPAT’s scope included appeals on official plans, zoning by-laws, subdivisions, heritage, and more, as well as inheriting and reorganizing jurisdiction over numerous statutes. The LPAT shifted away from de novo hearings, which were hearings granted by the Courts to start cases anew, to a two-stage appeal process requiring conformity with municipal official plans and consistent application of provincial policies.
Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) (2021–present):
The LPAT was short-lived. In 2019, the Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford passed Bill 108 (More Homes, More Choice Act), rolling back many of the LPAT’s constraints and reintroducing de novo hearings, expanding appeal rights, and weakening municipal control. On June 1, 2021, the LPAT was merged with five other tribunals to form the OLT via the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 (Schedule 6 of Bill 245, Accelerating Access to Justice Act, 2021). This act amalgamated the LPAT, the Board of Negotiation, the Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, and the Mining and Lands Tribunal. The government framed this consolidation as a move to “get housing built faster” and “depoliticize the process,” aiming for greater efficiency by removing overlapping tribunals. In practice, this amalgamation has made land-use planning less transparent by obscuring the decision-making process, due to the merging of tribunal mandates, and has contributed to an increased backlog of proposed development projects.
According to the Auditor General’s 2023 report, key planning decisions, such as zoning changes and Minister’s Zoning Orders, have increasingly bypassed standard consultation and planning processes. While this has reduced frivolous appeals and encouraged municipalities to resolve issues with developers before cases are brought to OLT, it has also limited public input and oversight and reduced the flexibility of municipalities to address valid local concerns. The report also highlighted that the OLT does not always reflect local priorities, raising broader concerns about accountability and the tribunal’s role in shaping Ontario’s urban landscape. The OLT, with its broad jurisdiction over planning and development, environmental and heritage protection, property value and compensation, and municipal fiscal issues, plays a significant role in shaping the physical and social fabric of our communities. These criticisms highlight the systemic issues within the OLT that need to be addressed for a fair and efficient planning process to occur.
3. Understanding the Current OLT Process
The OLT, as an appeal body under the Planning Act, plays a crucial role in shaping Ontario's urban landscape. When a municipality fails to decide on a proposed amendment within a specific timeframe or when a decision is contested by a developer or community group, the matter can be appealed to the OLT. The process begins with a case management conference to identify key issues and timelines. This may include mediation before proceeding to a formal hearing. At a hearing, parties present evidence, usually through expert witnesses, and the Tribunal assesses whether the proposed amendment aligns with the Provincial Policy Statement, provincial plans (e.g., Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan), and the applicable regional municipality's official plan. The OLT has the authority to approve, modify, or reject the amendment, and its decisions are binding. However, these decisions have been criticized for their lack of consideration for local priorities, leading to development delays and favouring well-resourced applicants over community groups.
4. Key Criticisms and Systemic Insufficiencies
Despite the OLT’s stated purpose of delivering fair and efficient land use decisions, the OLT is criticized for its complex bylaw framework and prolonged decision times, which result in costly delays. The Ontario Land Tribunal’s persistent delays have significant financial implications for municipalities, which may face substantial fines or penalties when projects are delayed or left incomplete due to prolonged adjudication timelines. These costs place additional strain on local governments and taxpayers, underscoring the need for a more efficient and accountable tribunal process. Delays are also detrimental to the development industry, including non-profit organizations and community housing providers, as they increase costs and uncertainty for new housing projects. This can jeopardize the viability of affordable housing initiatives and hinder progress on urgently needed developments. At the same time, planning and community engagement processes are rarely fully democratic in practice, as they tend to privilege those with the time, resources, or motivation to participate. This amplifies the voices of those opposed to development while overlooking the broader public, many of whom remain neutral or disengaged from the issue.
Although the Conservative government restructured the OLT to improve efficiency, delays in the OLT are still widespread. Due to ongoing backlogs and procedural complexity, hearings frequently stretch over months or even years. The process can be challenging, especially for non-experts adjudicating cases, making it less transparent and more prone to inconsistent outcomes. The amalgamation of five previously independent tribunals has resulted in the loss of specialized expertise, as matters once handled by experienced adjudicators in areas such as urban planning and environmental science are now decided without the same level of subject-matter understanding.
While the OLT’s mandate is to uphold provincial planning policy, the absence of expertise in urban planning that was previously present under the LPAT can hinder its ability to assess cases with the nuance required for complex local contexts. This means municipalities and developers are required to assume the financial burden of hiring expert witnesses. Combined with delays in adjudication and the sheer volume of appeals, the OLT has become a bottleneck in the planning system. The situation points less to the OLT’s overreach and more to the upstream challenges: inconsistent municipal planning, inadequate public engagement, and a lack of early-stage resolution mechanisms that push too many cases into an already overloaded appeal system.
5. Case Studies or Examples
Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association et al. v. Toronto (City), OLT Case No. OLT‑22‑004678
Background:
The City of Toronto sought to address urgent homelessness needs by constructing a three-storey modular supportive housing building at 175 Cummer Avenue. The proposed development consisted of 59 self-contained units and was designed to provide stable housing with accompanying support services. In June 2022, the City Council passed Zoning By-law No. 818-2022 to permit the project.
Process:
Following the passage of the by-law, three groups, the Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association, LiVante Holdings (Cummer) Inc., and Voices of Willowdale Inc. (which were granted non-appellant party status), filed appeals under Section 34(19) of the Planning Act. They challenged the project's compatibility with the surrounding area and questioned the adequacy of consultation. The OLT reviewed the case and ultimately found that the project met the policy objectives of the Planning Act and conformed to the City’s Official Plan. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, confirming the zoning by-law.
Outcome:
The OLT ruling cleared the path for construction to proceed. However, the appeal process delayed the project by nearly two years, during which time costs escalated from an initial estimate of $14 million to approximately $36 million. No penalties or cost orders were imposed on the appellants, despite the financial and human consequences of the delay.
The Catch:
The delay deferred critical shelter access for people experiencing homelessness, despite the urgent need for supportive housing. The case highlights how procedural appeals, even when ultimately dismissed, can result in massive public costs and prolonged human suffering. It highlights the importance of resolving planning disputes involving essential public infrastructure in a timely manner.
Empire Communities v. City of Thorold, OLT Case No. OLT-22-002825
Background:
Developers MilSki Inc., Shane Webber, and Italo Marandola proposed a 40-unit apartment building on the former Riganelli’s Bakery site in Thorold, Ontario. While aiming to bring new housing to the area, the project met opposition from residents who felt the development was out of character with the existing neighbourhood. Meanwhile, the City of Thorold had recently passed Zoning By-law 60-2019, a comprehensive update intended to modernize local planning rules and align them more closely with provincial policy direction.
Process:
In 2019, the City’s Committee of Adjustment deferred its decision on the proposal, citing concerns about the lack of sufficient information, particularly regarding parking. Developers responded by appealing to the OLT. Several other parties, including Empire Communities, Lily Ruggi, and Shane Webber, also filed appeals related to aspects of the new comprehensive zoning by-law. The appeals led to a lengthy adjudication process. Ultimately, on May 23, 2024, the OLT issued an order partially allowing Empire Communities' appeal, permitting amendments to the residential zoning provisions and definitions.
Outcome:
The Tribunal approved specific modifications to zoning provisions and authorized the City Clerk to make these changes official. However, the appeal was only partially resolved: other matters remain under appeal, with no final decision expected until after a status update scheduled for October 1, 2024. In the meantime, the drawn-out process incurred substantial legal and administrative costs for the City.
The Catch:
The drawn-out appeal process delayed both zoning clarity and the delivery of needed housing. Despite modest gains in zoning reform, unresolved portions of the appeal continue to stall planning certainty for other developments. The case illustrates how fragmented and prolonged OLT processes can disrupt municipal planning goals, create financial burdens, and frustrate both developers and residents seeking predictability in land use decisions.
6. Broader Implications for Planning and Development
The OLT represents a centralized appeal mechanism, where a provincial body has the final say on local land use decisions. In other words, the OLT has unified control over all decisions related to land use planning, environmental protection, and other matters. The OLT enforces province-wide planning priorities, as outlined in its mandate, including intensification, housing supply, and transit-oriented development. This creates a more “predictable” environment for developers and investors by applying a standardized interpretation of planning rules.
This centralization causes tensions with municipalities whose local governments shape development based on community needs, neighbourhood character, and infrastructure realities. Municipalities contend that effective planning must reflect place-based realities and incorporate local input, even if that input is not always representative of broader public sentiment. The growing volume of appeals to the OLT, however, signals systemic challenges. In many cases, delays and disputes arise not from the tribunal itself, but from upstream weaknesses in planning and permitting at the municipal level. Poor coordination and inconsistent decision-making during the early stages of municipal and provincial land-use planning often leave unresolved conflicts that end up before the OLT’s appeal body, which was never intended to manage such a high volume or complexity of disputes.
This dynamic raises essential questions about the structure of Ontario’s planning regime: Should it continue to rely on a top-down approach to accelerate housing delivery and enforce provincial goals? Or should greater effort be made to strengthen municipal planning capacity and resolve issues before they escalate to the OLT? The answer has implications not only for the pace of housing construction but also for the efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness of Ontario’s broader land use system. Striking the right balance will require improving local planning processes and the appeal mechanisms intended to support them.
7. Reform Proposals and What Comes Next
The OLT must be held more accountable, not only to the public but also to the municipalities and stakeholders affected by the delays in its decisions. The 2021 amalgamation aimed to streamline operations, but in practice, it has reduced the depth of planning expertise and has not led to meaningful improvements in efficiency. Increasing the housing supply should create more substantial incentives for municipalities to collaborate with developers in meeting their housing delivery targets and avoiding unnecessary delays. Lengthy appeals to the OLT should be a last resort, not a routine outcome. The OLT is currently overwhelmed and cannot manage the volume of appeals it receives, a problem that hinders both timely development and the broader planning system. While performance targets already exist, the Auditor General has found that the OLT persistently fails to meet them, which contributes to costly backlogs and prolonged uncertainty for municipalities, developers, and communities alike.
To help make decisions within the intended 30- or 90-day timelines, a targeted set of reforms is needed. To improve outcomes, the provincial government should increase the core funding of the OLT to ensure it has adequate staff and adjudicators. Expanding the pool of qualified adjudicators and offering competitive and stable appointments would help address chronic capacity issues. In addition, a triage case management system should be introduced to assess and prioritize cases early, allowing simpler cases to be resolved quickly and directing more resources to more complex appeals. Establishing a dedicated fast-track system for non-profit and affordable housing projects, where delays jeopardize urgently needed developments, will help reduce costs associated with delays. Together, these reforms would not only improve the speed and integrity of land planning use, but they would also help the OLT meet its statutory obligations.
To address these structural challenges, the OLT should implement procedural reforms that enhance predictability and transparency. One proposal is to implement a standardized legal test for adjudicators that would require them to clearly outline how public input, municipal planning decisions, and trade-offs are considered in each ruling. This helps restore confidence in the process while reducing the likelihood of appeals rooted in unclear or inconsistent reasoning. It is equally essential to increase deference to municipal decisions where appropriate. If a municipality has followed planning policy and conducted community engagement, adjudicators should be required to justify any departure from the local outcome. Doing so would reduce unnecessary appeals and encourage better-quality decisions earlier in the planning process, which is a key factor in accelerating housing delivery.
Tribunal Watch Ontario is a non-partisan public-interest organization founded in early 2020 by academics, former tribunal members, and legal professionals to monitor Ontario’s adjudicative tribunals and advocate for reforms. Their mission is to safeguard tribunal independence, transparency, expertise, and timely, accessible justice through competitive, merit‑based appointment processes. Structured with a steering committee, advisory council, and tribunal-specific working groups, they publish analyses, propose policy reforms, and provide public education, all while refraining from intervening in individual cases.
Tribunal Watch Ontario has proposed establishing the Adjudicative Tribunal Justice Council as an independent oversight body, similar to the Ombudsman and Auditor General. The Council would report to the legislature and be empowered to oversee the recruitment, appointment, evaluation, and reappointment of tribunal chairs and members, as well as develop policies and provide research-based recommendations to support the fairness, independence, and effectiveness of Ontario’s adjudicative tribunal system. Such a body could help ensure the OLT operates with the expertise and accountability necessary to support timely housing decisions and reduce costly gridlock in the appeals system.
8. Conclusion
While it is sometimes necessary to go through the land-use adjudication process, the current structure of the OLT lacks transparency, consistency, and public confidence. Under the Progressive Conservative government, the Tribunal has become increasingly centralized and inefficient, with unclear timelines, poor adherence to its schedules, and an overwhelming backlog. These delays not only stall much-needed housing but also result in fines for municipalities, costs that are ultimately borne by the public.
The fact that so many projects end up before the OLT is itself a sign of failure in the municipal planning process. When cities delay approvals, ignore provincial policy, or resist intensification, they push projects into an appeals system that was not intended to manage the volume it currently handles. In this context, an OLT that rules in favour of development are not the problem; it is part of the solution. When the Tribunal consistently applies planning rules and prioritizes housing delivery, it creates an incentive for municipalities to approve good projects early and avoid costly, time-consuming appeals.
The OLT must become more reliable and accountable to restore public trust and improve housing outcomes. The OLT must apply its rules consistently across the board, and schedules must be respected and followed promptly to avoid delay. Municipal governments must be encouraged to engage proactively with builders, rather than obstructing projects only to face appeals and delays later. With support from watchdogs like Tribunal Watch Ontario and continued pressure from housing advocates, Ontario has an opportunity to reform its planning system so that it works better for everyone, not just those with the loudest voices, but for the many people still waiting for an affordable and a ccessible place to live.
9. Bibliography
Books & Book Chapters
Bond Wileman, K., Ivri, R., Nastasi, L., & Pressman, D. (2018). Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. In Tribunal practice and procedure (pp. 115–134). Emond Publishing.
University of Toronto Press. (n.d.). Changing neighbourhoods: Social and spatial polarization in Canadian cities. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/50/monograph/book/104374
Web Articles & Reports
Davies Howe LLP. (n.d.). And then there was Bill 23 (Part 3): New powers for the Ontario Land Tribunal. https://davieshowe.com/and-then-there-was-bill-23-part-3-new-powers-for-the-ontario-land-tribunal/
Government of Ontario. (n.d.-a). Ontario proposing changes to Ontario Municipal Board to improve efficiency and accessibility. https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/42049/ontario-proposing-changes-to-ontario-municipal-board-to-improve-efficiency-and-accessibility
Government of Ontario. (n.d.-b). Ontario Land Tribunal. https://olt.gov.on.ca/the-ontario-land-tribunal/
Government of Ontario. (n.d.-c). Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/21o04
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. (2023). 2023 annual report. https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/annualreports.html
Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. (2024). Value-for-money audit: Ontario Land Tribunal. https://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en24/pa_ONlandtribunal_en24.pdf
Sherr Law Group. (n.d.). Why municipalities should amend by‑laws regularly. https://sherrlawgroup.com/why-municipalities-should-amend-by-laws-regularly/
Tribunal Watch Ontario. (2024, January). Statement on the Ontario Land Tribunal: A gradual erosion of access to justice. https://tribunalwatch.ca/2024/tribunal-watch-ontario-statement-on-the-ontario-land-tribunal-a-gradual-erosion-of-access-to-justice/
Tribunal Watch Ontario. (2024, March). The Adjudicative Tribunal Justice Council: A proposal for 2024. https://tribunalwatch.ca/2024/the-adjudicative-tribunal-justice-council-a-proposal-for-2024/
Tribunals Ontario. (2019). Annual report 2018–2019. https://tribunalsontario.ca/documents/sjto/2019_11_19-Tribunals_Ontario_Annual_Report.html
Villarosa, A. (n.d.). From OMB to LPAT: Changes in land use decision‑making in Ontario. Columbia Journal of Tax Law Bulletin. https://www.jtl.columbia.edu/bulletin-blog/from-omb-to-lpat-changes-in-land-use-decision-making-in-ontario
Case Law & Tribunal Decisions
Ontario Land Tribunal. (2024, May 23). Order OLT‑22‑002825: Appeal by Shane Webber regarding City of Thorold Comprehensive Zoning By‑law No. 60‑2019 [PDF]. City of Thorold / Ontario Land Tribunal. https://www.thorold.ca/en/city-hall/resources/Planning/602019-Zoning-By-Law/OLT-22-002825-MAY-23-2024-ORD.pdf
Ontario Land Tribunal. (2024, January 2). OLT‑22‑004678: Decision issued January 2, 2024 [PDF]. Ontario Land Tribunal. https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/OLT-22-004678-JAN-02-2024.PDF
Lansbergen, B. (2022, December 12). Ormond Street developer wins case at Ontario Land Tribunal. ThoroldToday. https://www.thoroldtoday.ca/local-news/ormond-street-developer-wins-case-at-ontario-land-tribunal-6232577
*****
Caitlin Budhram is completing the final year of her Master of Public and International Affairs degree at Glendon College, York University (Toronto).