A. Mason

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 35-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 42-storey building that includes 37 rental replacement units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the draft zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, subject to the satisfaction of several pre-conditions.

The Township of King and the Regional Municipality of York brought a motion for directions arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Development Charges Act because the underlying development charge had not been paid prior to the complaint being filed.

The moving parties asserted that the statutory scheme requires a 'payment first' approach.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the plain language of section 20 of the Act does not require payment of a development charge as a precondition to bringing a complaint.

The appeal was directed to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment denying a minor variance to increase the gross floor area of a secondary dwelling unit from 89 sq m to 124 sq m to facilitate the conversion of an attic into four additional bedrooms.

The Tribunal found that while the variance met the intent of the Official Plan, it failed the other three tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Specifically, it did not maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law regarding height restrictions for secondary dwelling units, was not minor in nature when considered in the context of existing permissions, and was not desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for Site Plan Approval and a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 78-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement resolving outstanding engineering matters through a single set of conditions of approval.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with applicable Official Plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the site plan and draft plan of subdivision subject to the agreed conditions.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Development Charge By-Law No. 11370-2022.

The parties requested assistance with procedural matters and finalizing the Procedural Order for a phased merit hearing.

The Tribunal issued an order setting dates for the City to respond to disclosure requests, scheduling a potential motion for direction, and setting a 14-day Phase 1 Merit Hearing for June 2026.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a consent and zoning by-law amendment application to create a new rural residential lot.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a revised wetland buffer and a reduced minimum distance separation setback from a nearby barn.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the official plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the instruments approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Milton's Official Plan Amendment No. 86 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 036-2025, which relate to employment areas.

The parties advised that they are in active settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 21, 2025, to allow discussions to continue.

The appellant appealed the lack of a decision by the township and region regarding complaints made under s. 20 of the Development Charges Act.

The appellant argued that the proposed development of an additional single-family dwelling was exempt from development charges.

At the first Case Management Conference, the township argued the appeal was invalid because the appellant had not yet paid the charges or obtained a building permit.

The Tribunal determined that a threshold jurisdictional question must be answered before proceeding to a hearing on the merits and scheduled a written motion for direction.

The applicant appealed the Town of Huntsville's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Community Planning Permit By-law and for a Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit 96 residential units.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed to the applicable Official Plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the municipality's Community Benefits Charge By-law under section 37(17) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to continue active settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, directing the parties to advise if a settlement is reached or if a merits hearing needs to be scheduled.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to redesignate lands to facilitate a compact mixed-use community.

Based on a settlement between the parties and the uncontested planning evidence of a Registered Professional Planner, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and amended the North Oakville East Secondary Plan.

The amendment permits residential uses in the Trafalgar Urban Core 1 Area, introduces minimum density targets, and provides for a Community Park Area.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The subject property was designated Mixed-Use Two (MU2), which limits height to 20 storeys and density to 3.0 FSI.

The applicant argued that a secondary plan policy allowed for greater height and density with justification, without needing an official plan amendment.

The Tribunal found that the correct density calculation was 9.53 FSI based on net site area.

The Tribunal held that while the exception policy was permissive, it could not be used to 'leapfrog' the maximum height and density of the next higher designation, as doing so would undermine the foundational hierarchy of designations in the Secondary Plan.

The appeal was dismissed as the proposal did not conform to the official plan.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Vaughan brought a motion for directions to phase the hearing of an appeal regarding a proposed 21-storey residential development.

The moving parties sought a Phase 2A hearing to determine natural heritage and hazard issues (the permissible building envelope) before a Phase 2B hearing on remaining planning issues.

The appellant argued the motion was barred by issue estoppel due to a prior review disposition.

The Tribunal found issue estoppel did not apply, as the prior disposition did not decide the phasing request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that determining the permissible building envelope is a threshold issue and that phasing the hearing would provide the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the appeals.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Vaughan brought a motion requesting a phased hearing for appeals concerning a proposed 21-storey residential development on lands with environmental designations.

The moving parties sought a Phase 2A hearing to determine the permissible building envelope based on natural heritage and hazard issues, followed by a Phase 2B hearing for remaining planning issues.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing it was barred by issue estoppel due to a prior review disposition.

The Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not apply, as the prior disposition did not decide the phasing request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, concluding that the environmental issues are threshold matters and that a phased approach would provide the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the appeals.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a consolidated residential development spanning multiple properties.

At a settlement hearing, the appellants requested the Tribunal exercise its discretion to include parkland in the settlement zoning by-law amendment, despite it not being part of the original application.

The Tribunal found insufficient explanation and time to consider this new request, converted the hearing to a Case Management Conference, and ordered the parties to bring a preliminary motion on the issue.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing for consolidated appeals regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a unified development concept spanning the Eglinton Lands and Henning Lands.

At the hearing, the appellants requested that the Tribunal exercise its discretion to include the Henning Parkland in the settlement zoning by-law amendment, despite it not being part of the original application.

Due to the last-minute nature of this request and the complexity of the settlement proposal, the Tribunal declined to proceed with the settlement hearing, converted the event to a case management conference, and directed the parties to bring a formal motion to address the inclusion of the parkland.

A second case management conference was held regarding appeals against the modified approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit three residential apartment towers.

No requests for party or participant status were received.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the final procedural order to govern the upcoming five-day merits hearing, noting that the parties are actively engaged in settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a residential lot to create two new single detached dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the City passed a new comprehensive zoning by-law, and the parties reached a settlement amending the lot lines to comply with the new by-law without requiring minor variances.

An adjacent neighbour was granted party status and opposed the settlement, arguing the smaller lots were incompatible with the neighbourhood and premature pending a municipal drainage study.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted provisional consent, finding the amended proposal was compatible with the new zoning standards and that stormwater management concerns were adequately addressed through the agreed conditions of consent.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 59-unit townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the County of Perth's refusal to amend the Official Plan to permit a 19-unit townhouse development.

The County withdrew its objection and the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two sets of neighbours and scheduled a settlement hearing for March 12, 2025, declining to hear settlement evidence immediately to allow participants to be heard and to coordinate with a related zoning by-law amendment appeal.