Blair S. Taylor

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding a 2015 legacy appeal under subsection 42(10) of the Planning Act.

The City advised that missing building permit plans had been found, but the matter was not resolved.

The City indicated its intent to bring a motion challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear argument on the interpretation of the City's Parkland By-law.

The Tribunal directed that the City's jurisdictional motion proceed in writing and set a timetable for the exchange of materials.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 45-storey residential tower.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Diocese and the Clinic on consent.

The parties expressed interest in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal directed the preparation of a revised draft Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference, declining to set a 25-day hearing on the merits at this stage.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the redevelopment of a waterfront property, including a new dwelling, sleeping cabins, and a two-storey boathouse.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and local official plans, and allowed the appeal in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment to facilitate the expansion of a metal fabrication facility.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted party status to the County of Simcoe on consent, and adjourned the Applicant's Motion to Dismiss to a later date due to health-related issues for one counsel.

Directions were also given for the preparation of a draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 9-storey residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement supported by local residents' associations.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal represented good planning, provided appropriate transition to the existing neighbourhood, and supported transit-oriented intensification.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised zoning by-law amendment was approved.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of a multi-tenant commercial property by the Ministry of Transportation.

Prior to the hearing, the parties settled the market value at $3,200,000 and business loss at $507,000.

The remaining issues were the commencement date for interest and a request for an increased interest rate of 12% due to alleged delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for increased interest, finding it was not pleaded and there was no undue delay.

The Tribunal also held that productive use of the property ceased on February 28, 2018, when the last tenants vacated, and interest should commence from that date.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to consider a proposed settlement of an appeal against the City of Thorold's Comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The settlement proposed rezoning the subject lands from Environmental Protection Two to R1A.

Based on expert land use planning evidence that the boundary refinement was minor and supported by an Environmental Impact Study, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and in principle, subject to the submission of a revised draft Zoning By-law Amendment including a holding provision and conditions of approval.

The appellant appealed a cash-in-lieu payment of $58,552.07 required by the City under the Planning Act.

The appeal languished for over seven years with no action taken by the parties.

The Tribunal issued a notice of potential dismissal and scheduled a Case Management Conference.

At the conference, the parties requested an extension of time to locate building permit plans that could resolve the matter.

The Tribunal reluctantly granted a short extension and scheduled a peremptory Case Management Conference to hear a status update or convert to a settlement hearing.

Following an interim decision that allowed appeals of consents and a minor variance in part and in principle, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued its final order.

The Tribunal attached the agreed-upon draft conditions of approval for the provisional consent and the minor variance for the proposed Lot 1 at 1079 Roosevelt Road in the City of Mississauga.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Township of Clearview's Zoning By-law No. 21-78, which regulates cannabis cultivation and production facilities.

The Tribunal granted party status to two individuals and participant status to two corporate entities without objection.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled, and directions were given for the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 20-storey mixed-use building.

Following a public settlement hearing, the Tribunal approved a revised proposal for a 21-storey building in principle.

The Tribunal issued its final order allowing the appeals in part and approving the final form of the official plan and zoning by-law amendments, subject to a Section 37 contribution of $900,000 toward a new linear park.

The applicant appealed a permit issued by the Quinte Conservation Authority to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Tribunal found that under the Conservation Authorities Act, an applicant must first request a hearing before the conservation authority regarding specific permit conditions before appealing to the Tribunal.

Because the applicant failed to perfect a request for a hearing before the authority, the Tribunal concluded it lacked statutory jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed it.

In an expropriation proceeding, the Claimant sought disturbance damages including $1,015,000 for additional mortgage interest costs allegedly caused by delay.

The Region brought a motion for production of financial statements, bank records, and corporate records from the Claimant and two third-party mortgagees, arguing the mortgages were non-arm's length transactions involving the Claimant's director.

The Tribunal allowed the motion in part, ordering production of the requested financial and corporate records, finding them relevant to proving whether funds were actually disbursed and necessary to avoid prejudice to the Region.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of consent and minor variance applications to create a three-lot development with one detached and two semi-detached dwellings.

The Tribunal allowed the consent appeals and the minor variance for a reduced rear yard setback in principle, finding they represented appropriate residential intensification consistent with provincial policies.

However, the Tribunal denied the minor variances for increased flat roof height, finding they did not meet the general intent and purpose of the recently enacted zoning by-law.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled 20-day hearing on the merits to allow time to file a heritage permit application with the City.

This request was prompted by a recent Divisional Court decision finding that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over land use planning matters when a required heritage permit application has not been filed.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal granted the adjournment, scheduled a fifth Case Management Conference, and set new dates for the hearing in 2023.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an interim decision issued in 2017 for an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant sought to proceed with revised plans, while the City argued the Tribunal was functus officio.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day hearing to first determine the jurisdictional motion and, if dismissed, to hear land use planning evidence by affidavit.

The appellant appealed a rezoning and consents for three new residential lots.

On the morning of the first day of the hearing, the self-represented appellant emailed the Tribunal stating he had tested positive for COVID-19 and was en route to the hospital.

The appellant did not appear for the first three days of the scheduled hearing, nor did a representative appear on his behalf.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and directed that the new hearing date be peremptory on the appellant.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the conversion of the second storey of an existing garage into a private cabin and to legalize existing lot coverage on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the general intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was dismissed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

During a Case Management Conference for an appeal concerning a mixed-use development, an adjacent resident sought party status on behalf of two newly incorporated federal companies: Tenants Have No Rights Association and SOS Save Our City Association.

The Tribunal applied the factors from 1137528 Ontario Ltd. v Oakville (Town) and granted party status to the Tenants association, finding they had a direct interest and would be prejudiced otherwise.

The Tribunal denied party status to SOS, finding the broader community interest was already well represented by the City and other parties.

The appellant appealed a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) concerning the adaptive reuse of a former school building.

Following an interim decision, the Town provided a revised conceptual site plan and draft ZBA deeming Fifth Street as the frontage.

The Tribunal found the minor changes and clarifications acceptable, allowing the appeal in part to approve the revised ZBA.