Who is D.S. Colbourne?

D.S. Colbourne is a vice-chair at the Ontario Land Tribunal with 96 decisions on record from 2021 to 2026. Key areas include other tribunals, administrative law, real estate law.

What tribunal does D.S. Colbourne sit on?

D.S. Colbourne sits on the Ontario Land Tribunal.

What areas of law does D.S. Colbourne decide?

D.S. Colbourne's most common areas include Other Tribunals (86 decisions), Administrative Law (61 decisions), Real Estate Law (46 decisions). D.S. Colbourne has handled 96 decisions across 5 areas.

How many decisions has D.S. Colbourne made?

D.S. Colbourne has 96 decisions on record from 2021 to 2026.

Who frequently appears before D.S. Colbourne?

Representatives who frequently appear before D.S. Colbourne include M. Longo, Linda Hong, M. Hardiejowski.

D.S. Colbourne — Vice-Chair

Stephen Barclay v. Georgian Bluffs (Township), 2026 CanLII 46871

Appeal of zoning amendment non-decision dismissed without a hearing due to incomplete application lacking required studies.

The Township brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a non-decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The appellant sought to permit a cottage on a lot with significant natural features and private road access.

The Township argued the application was never deemed complete because the appellant refused to provide required supporting studies, including environmental, servicing, and stormwater management reports.

The Tribunal found the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and disclosed no land use planning grounds, as there was insufficient information to evaluate the proposal against provincial and municipal planning policies.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

OLTMay 13, 2026

2678615 Ontario Inc. v. The Regional Municipality of Peel, 2025 CanLII 43248

Hearing of necessity adjourned due to late service of expert witness documents.

At a Hearing of Necessity regarding the proposed expropriation of lands for a sanitary sewer diversion project, the owner objected to proceeding due to the late service of the expropriating authority's expert witness curriculum vitae and the lack of witness statements.

The owner sought to call the authority's staff as witnesses to ensure a full record.

The expropriating authority consented to a brief adjournment to rectify the late service.

The Tribunal ordered a one-day continuation of the hearing and directed the service of the required expert documents and a jointly prepared hearing plan.

OLTMay 8, 2025

Champagne Centre Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 55793

Tribunal amends previous decision to correct a typographical error regarding settlement details.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated April 24, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 6 of the original decision was deleted and replaced to accurately reflect the settlement details regarding the redesignation of the subject site from Employment Areas to General Employment Areas.

OLTJun 13, 2024

Edwards v. Kingsville (Town), 2024 CanLII 55804

Hearing of necessity adjourned on consent as the expropriating authority lacked an expert witness.

OLTJun 13, 2024

Bramwest Development Corporation v. Metrolinx, 2024 CanLII 53861

Proposed expropriation for railway expansion found reasonably necessary and defensible.

The claimant requested a Hearing of Necessity regarding the proposed expropriation of their lands by Metrolinx for the Kitchener Corridor Expansion project.

Metrolinx presented unchallenged expert evidence that a grade separation and flyover were necessary for safety and to accommodate increased rail traffic, and that the claimant's lands were the ideal location due to topography.

The Tribunal found that the proposed takings were fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the expropriating authority's objectives, and reported that the takings were reasonably defensible.

OLTJun 3, 2024

Champagne Centre Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 48173

Tribunal amends previous decision to correct typographical error regarding proposed zoning by-law amendments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision dated April 24, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 6 of the original decision was deleted and replaced to accurately reflect the proposed implementation of a settlement regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 231, including redesignation of the subject site and specific zoning by-law amendments.

OLTMay 24, 2024

Champagne Centre Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 38852

Tribunal approves Official Plan Amendment settlement permitting medical overnight accommodation near fuel terminals.

Champagne Centre Ltd. appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231 to permit a development including retail, personal service, and office space, as well as overnight accommodation for patients using on-site medical facilities.

The City and the appellant reached a settlement proposing a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP).

Canadian Fuels Association opposed the settlement, arguing that the introduction of sensitive uses near its fuel terminals would negatively impact operations and pose public health and safety risks.

The Tribunal approved the SASP in principle, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted the appellant's expert evidence that potential risks were mitigated and rejected the opposing expert evidence, which relied on inapplicable foreign guidelines.

OLTApr 24, 2024

Saad Askandar et al. v. Town of Richmond Hill, 2024 CanLII 38849

Tribunal grants consent request for administrative correction to implement finalized Key Development Area boundary.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an administrative correction and amending order on consent of the parties.

The order corrects a previous decision regarding an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision for Yonge MCD Inc. in the Town of Richmond Hill.

The correction gives effect to a finalized Key Development Area boundary that was previously agreed upon and approved by the Tribunal.

OLTApr 23, 2024

Southbridge Health Care GP Inc., CVH (NO. 6) GP INC., CVH (NO. 6) LP v. Port Hope (Municipality), 2024 CanLII 19740

Motion to confirm validity of first demolition permit denied; procedural order issued for merits hearing.

The appellant brought a motion claiming that its first demolition permit application remained valid because the municipality failed to make a decision within the statutory timelines under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the municipality had the authority to change its by-law to refuse the demolition permit.

The Tribunal also issued a procedural order and issues list for the upcoming merits hearing regarding the denial of the second demolition permit application.

OLTMar 8, 2024

1142059 Ontario Limited v. Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (Twp.), 2024 CanLII 19688

Zoning appeal adjourned sine die pending outcome of related Aggregate Resources Act application to allow consolidation.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an aggregate extraction operation.

At the third case management conference, the appellant requested that a merit hearing be scheduled for the zoning appeal, as the related Aggregate Resources Act (ARA) application was delayed due to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry adding three First Nations to the duty to consult list.

The Township and an added party opposed, arguing that the zoning and ARA matters should be consolidated to avoid duplicative proceedings.

The Tribunal agreed that consolidation was appropriate and that it was premature to proceed with the zoning hearing while the ARA application remained pending.

The Tribunal adjourned the matter sine die until the ARA license is issued or denied.

OLTMar 8, 2024

Brentview Construction Limited v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2024 CanLII 19661

Expropriation of property for road widening found fair, sound, and reasonably necessary.

The property owner requested a Hearing of Necessity regarding the proposed fee simple expropriation of a portion of its property by the Regional Municipality of Peel for the Airport Road improvement project.

The Authority presented evidence that the taking was required for road widening, drainage improvements, and ditching.

The property owner called no evidence and acknowledged the Authority's position.

The Tribunal found that the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the Authority's objectives.

OLTMar 7, 2024

Price v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 16984

Expropriation of condominium lands for subway elevator construction access found fair, sound, and reasonably necessary.

The City of Toronto sought to expropriate fee simple interests and temporary easements from a condominium corporation to construct elevators at the Old Mill Subway Station.

The condominium corporation requested an inquiry under section 7 of the Expropriations Act, objecting to the use of its breezeway for heavy construction vehicle access due to concerns about the structural stability of its underground parking garage roof and safety risks.

The Tribunal considered competing expert evidence on the garage's weight-bearing capacity and evaluated alternative access routes.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed takings were fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the objective of improving transit accessibility, finding the alternatives unsatisfactory.

OLTFeb 27, 2024

Al Reisman Limited et al. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 14532

Zoning by-law amendment rendering existing asphalt plants legal non-conforming uses struck down for lacking planning rationale.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law 607-2015, which rendered their existing asphalt plants legal non-conforming uses by adding a site-specific exception prohibiting such uses.

The Tribunal found that the by-law amendment was not a mere technical correction, lacked substantive planning rationale, and failed to provide certainty for traditional industries.

The Tribunal concluded that the exception was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, did not conform to the Growth Plan or the Toronto Official Plan, and did not have regard for matters of provincial interest.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the City was directed to amend the by-law to remove the properties from the exception.

OLTFeb 23, 2024

Southbridge Health Care GP Inc., CVH (NO. 6) GP INC., CVH (NO. 6) LP v. Port Hope (Municipality), 2024 CanLII 14433

Deemed consent for a demolition permit under the Ontario Heritage Act can be revoked by a municipality.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order that its demolition permit application was deemed consented to under the Ontario Heritage Act because the Municipality failed to provide notice of its decision within the statutory 90-day period.

The Tribunal agreed that deemed consent occurred due to the lack of timely notice.

However, the Tribunal found that the Municipality possessed the authority under the Municipal Act to revoke the by-law associated with the demolition permit, effectively revoking the permit.

The motion was therefore dismissed.

OLTFeb 20, 2024

Bahardoust v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 19758

Further Case Management Conference scheduled for remaining appeals to Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to receive status updates on the remaining appeals to the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The City provided updates on Phase 7 parking regulations appeals, topic-specific appeals including cemeteries, multi-tenant housing, places of worship, propane storage, and school boards, as well as several site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for May 7, 2024, to receive additional updates and address potential settlements or motions to dismiss inactive appeals.

OLTJan 12, 2024

D'Aversa v. Vaughan (City), 2022 CanLII 123624

Tribunal approves multiple site-specific settlements to Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law and deems un-appealed portions in force.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a case management conference to address multiple appeals of the City of Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Transitional By-law 039-2022.

The Tribunal heard and approved several settlement motions on consent, which corrected mapping errors and recognized site-specific exceptions for various properties.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendments consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal also issued an order under section 34(31) of the Planning Act deeming the un-appealed portions of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to be in force.

OLTDec 28, 2023

Multani v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 3389

Proposed expropriation of property for transitional housing found fair, sound, and reasonably necessary.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding the City of Toronto's proposed expropriation of their property.

The City sought to expropriate the property to secure it for long-term transitional and affordable housing, having previously leased it for a shelter.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives, and delivered its report to the expropriating authority.

OLTDec 11, 2023

Multani v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 121516

Expropriation of property for transitional housing found fair, sound, and reasonably necessary.

The City of Toronto proposed to expropriate a property to secure its long-term use for transitional and affordable housing.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity.

The Tribunal found that the City's evidence regarding the pressing municipal purpose for the housing program was unchallenged.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed taking is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives.

OLTDec 11, 2023

6524443 Canada Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 116979

Expropriation of lands for Bloor-Yonge subway expansion recommended to proceed as proposed.

The City of Toronto proposed to expropriate leasehold and freehold lands owned by Brookfield for the Bloor-Yonge Capacity Improvement project, specifically to relocate a chiller plant.

Brookfield opposed the expropriation of the leasehold lands as premature and the full freehold taking as excessive.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a hearing of necessity and found that the proposed construction is for a critical public purpose with a strict schedule.

The Tribunal recommended that the expropriations proceed as proposed.

OLTDec 4, 2023

Snowy Owl Woods Holdings Inc. v. Port Hope (Municipality), 2023 CanLII 115104

Procedural order issued for an appeal regarding a proposed subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 10-day video hearing regarding appeals by Snowy Owl Woods Holdings Inc. (Mistral Development Inc.) against the Municipality of Port Hope for its failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applications propose a development of 43 single detached dwellings and a block for a 10 to 21-unit apartment building.

The Order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates leading up to the hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2024.

OLTDec 1, 2023

Stephen Barclay v. Georgian Bluffs (Township), 2026 CanLII 46871

2678615 Ontario Inc. v. The Regional Municipality of Peel, 2025 CanLII 43248

Champagne Centre Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 55793

Edwards v. Kingsville (Town), 2024 CanLII 55804

Bramwest Development Corporation v. Metrolinx, 2024 CanLII 53861

Champagne Centre Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 48173

Champagne Centre Ltd. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 38852

Saad Askandar et al. v. Town of Richmond Hill, 2024 CanLII 38849

Southbridge Health Care GP Inc., CVH (NO. 6) GP INC., CVH (NO. 6) LP v. Port Hope (Municipality), 2024 CanLII 19740

1142059 Ontario Limited v. Ashfield-Colborne-Wawanosh (Twp.), 2024 CanLII 19688

Brentview Construction Limited v. Regional Municipality of Peel, 2024 CanLII 19661

Price v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 16984

Al Reisman Limited et al. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 14532

Southbridge Health Care GP Inc., CVH (NO. 6) GP INC., CVH (NO. 6) LP v. Port Hope (Municipality), 2024 CanLII 14433

Bahardoust v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 19758

D'Aversa v. Vaughan (City), 2022 CanLII 123624

Multani v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 3389

Multani v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 121516

6524443 Canada Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 116979

Snowy Owl Woods Holdings Inc. v. Port Hope (Municipality), 2023 CanLII 115104

Articling Student with Davies Howe LLP

for 1042710 Ontario Limited et al.

for 10870 Yonge Street Limited

for 10 QEW Inc.

for 1142059 Ontario Limited

for 1217861 Ontario Limited (Appeal 107), 258 Attwell Drive Limited (Appeal 108), 1585168 Ontario Inc. (Appeal 109), Red Banner Developments Limited (Appeal 110) and 1182929 Ontario Inc. (Appeal 111)

for 1341026 Ontario Inc. (Racetronix)

for 1384673 Ontario Inc. and Controlex Corporation

for 1529749 Ontario Limited et al.

for 1851477 Ontario Inc.

for 1920 Eglinton Ave.

for 2130254 Ontario Inc.

for 2160943 Ontario Inc.

for 217 Adelaide Holdings Ltd.

for 2362302 Ontario Ltd.

for 2516053 Ontario Inc.

for 2552317 Ontario Inc. (CinespaceStudios Inc.)

for 263468 Ontario Inc. (East Urban Properties)

for 2678615 Ontario Inc.

for 2735447 Ontario Inc. et al.

for 2748355 Canada Inc. et al.

for 536555 Ontario Ltd. and Emros Development Corp.

for 536555 Ontario Ltd. and Emros Developments Corp.

for 60 Bloor Equities Inc.

for 6524443 Canada Inc.

for 70 Park Street East Inc.

for 72 Steeles Holdings Limited et al.

for 844940 Ontario Inc.

for 855 Oxford Street Investments Ltd.

for 87 Ethel Avenue

for 87 Ethel Holdings Ltd.

for Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario

for Al Reisman Ltd., 1182929 Ontario Inc. and May Flower Landscaping Design Ltd.

for Amexon Realty Inc.

for Anatolia Block 59 Developments Limited et al.

for Appeal 19, 38, 43

for Appeal 20, 41

for Appeal 21, 24, 25, 26, 40

for Appeal 27, 28

for Appeal 30, 31

for Appeal 33, 45, 46

for Appeal 37

for Appeal 42

for Appeal 5

for Appeal 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 32, 39

for Appeals 21, 24, 25, 26, 40

for Arbor Memorial Inc.

for Arsandco Investments Limited (Appeal 158), The Goldman Group (Appeal 161) Burnac Holdings Limited (Appeal 170), and Sun Life Assurance Company (Appeal 184)

for Arsandco Investments Limited, The Goldman Group, Burnac Holdings Limited, and Sun Life Assurance Company

for Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd. (Appeals 17 and 21), The International Group Inc. (Appeals 24 to 26), and Irving Tissue Corporation (Appeals 32 and 33) and Krugarand Corporation (Appeal 213)

for Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd., The International Group Inc., Irving Tissue Corporation and Krugarand Corporation

for Atlantic Packaging Products, The International Group Inc., and Irving Tissue Corporation

for Autumn Peak Developments Inc

for Autumn Peak Developments Inc.

for Bayview Ottawa Holdings Inc.

for Berkeley Carlyle (Junction)

for Bramwest Development Corp. and James Reed

for Brentview Construction Limited

for Canadian Fuel Association

for Canadian Fuels Association