Blair S. Taylor

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding complex expropriation claims by the claimants against the respondent concerning Union Station.

The parties agreed on most terms of a draft Procedural Order but disagreed on the commencement date for a 40-day hearing, with the claimants proposing April 2025 and the respondent proposing September 2025.

The Tribunal compromised and set the hearing to commence on June 9, 2025, by video hearing, and directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding complex expropriations of lands and air rights at Union Station.

The parties provided updates on Tribunal-led mediation, a draft Procedural Order, and a Common Visual Evidence Book.

Finding that the parties had not yet agreed on the lands expropriated and their areas, the Tribunal concluded it was premature to set a hearing date.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled, and the parties were directed to file a revised draft Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding complex expropriation claims by Osmington (Union Station) Inc. and the City of Toronto against Metrolinx.

The Tribunal declined to set a hearing date, finding it premature as the parties had not yet agreed on the lands expropriated or finalized a Common Visual Evidence Book.

A third Case Management Conference was scheduled, and the parties were directed to file a revised draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 35-unit residential redevelopment.

The Tribunal previously approved the development in principle, withholding its final order until the zoning by-law was finalized and a real estate transaction was completed.

Being advised on consent that these conditions were met, the Tribunal issued its final order approving the amendments and the draft plan of subdivision.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation arising from expropriations at Union Station by Metrolinx.

The claimants, Osmington (Union Station) Inc. and the City of Toronto, and the respondent, Metrolinx, provided updates on pleadings and mediation efforts.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference, directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order, and suggested the creation of a common visual evidence book to assist in mediation or a hearing on the merits.

The City of Toronto requested a Case Management Conference to schedule a five-day hearing on the merits regarding outstanding appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 365.

The Tribunal treated the event as a Status Hearing.

After hearing from the parties that several rezoning applications had been approved by the City and others were progressing through municipal processes, the Tribunal found that setting a hearing date would be premature.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the hearing and directed the City to request a further status update in nine months if no material progress occurs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, setting the hearing date for June 12, 2023, and establishing deadlines for document exchange, discoveries, and expert reports.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act.

The Tribunal directed amendments to the draft Procedural Order, including requirements for a draft hearing plan and a Joint Document Book.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion date for April 28, 2023, and a five-day hearing on the merits commencing June 12, 2023.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment, consent to sever, and site plan application to permit a 22-unit, 3-storey apartment building.

Following a previous decision withholding the final order pending documentation, the Tribunal issued its final order.

The Tribunal allowed the consent and rezoning appeals in part, granting provisional consent and amending the zoning by-law.

The site plan was also approved subject to conditions.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriations Act, the parties presented differing versions of a draft Procedural Order.

The Claimant sought to postpone setting dates for witness lists, mediation, and expert meetings until after a third CMC, while the Region requested a fixed hearing date and schedule.

Noting that the expropriation occurred in 2018 and the matter had languished, the Tribunal set a 10-day hearing for December 2023 and directed the finalization of the Procedural Order with an extended schedule to accommodate the Claimant.

The Applicant appealed the Township's and Region's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan amendments, a zoning by-law amendment, and a draft plan of subdivision for a 588-unit residential development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to three neighbouring landowners based on proximity and shared issues regarding servicing and land use compatibility.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion brought by the Township to determine whether the hearing should be phased to address servicing as a threshold issue, and provisionally scheduled a four-week hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision for a residential development in the Hamlet of Claremont.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and satisfied the criteria under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, amending the zoning by-law and approving the draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions.

Metrolinx brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claimant's claim for $830,000 in expropriation compensation, arguing the claimant was merely a bare licensee under temporary occupancy licenses and not an 'owner' under the Expropriations Act.

The claimant brought a cross-motion for summary judgment in its favour.

The Tribunal found that the claimant's continuous occupation of the premises, payment of nominal rent, and provision of promotional benefits to the landlord raised a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the claimant was a tenant under an oral or implied tenancy.

The Tribunal dismissed both Metrolinx's motion for summary judgment and the claimant's cross-motion, directing the matter to proceed to a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 4-storey residential apartment building.

The appellant requested an adjournment at the hearing to retain experts, which the Tribunal denied as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds, lacked expert evidence, and had no reasonable prospect of success given the proposal's consistency with provincial and municipal intensification policies.

The Tribunal previously allowed the applicant's appeal in part regarding an infill mixed-use development, withholding its final order until certain conditions were met.

The City Solicitor having advised that the conditions were fulfilled to the City's satisfaction, the Tribunal issued its final order amending the applicable zoning by-laws.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan amendment and its refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law amendment application to permit the development of four new apartment buildings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the Official Plan amendment appeal but allowed the Zoning By-law amendment appeals in part, approving the amendments in a final form satisfactory to the City.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Kawartha Lakes' Development Charges By-laws.

Several appellants did not appear.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for October 2022 and a 19-day hearing on the merits for July 2023.

Directions were given for the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Town of Kingsville's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment, consent, and site plan applications to permit a 22-unit, 3-storey apartment building and the severance of an existing heritage house.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and in principle, finding the site ideally located for residential intensification.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's planners over the Town's consulting planner, concluding the development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the County and Town Official Plans, subject to minor revisions to the lot line to eliminate an irregular notch.

The applicant appealed the city's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mid-rise addition with rental units.

The Tribunal previously allowed the appeal in part and issued an approval in principle subject to conditions.

Having been advised that the conditions were satisfied and the amendments were in a form satisfactory to the city, the Tribunal ordered the amendment of the applicable zoning by-laws.

The applicant appealed a site-specific zoning by-law that limited development to 6 storeys and 31 metres in height.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit a 9-storey mid-rise apartment building within the same 31-metre height limit, subject to a section 37 agreement for the additional height.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised by-law amendment conforms to provincial and municipal policies, represents appropriate intensification near a transit corridor, and constitutes good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.