Jean-Pierre Blais

The appellants appealed the municipality's Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment designating a new provincially significant wetland.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered the draft Procedural Order.

As the appellants did not consent to the draft and sought to resolve the matter without a hearing, the Tribunal explained that a merit hearing was necessary.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day video hearing and approved the Procedural Order.

Following a settlement agreement for the expropriation of the claimant's property, the claimant brought an application for costs under section 32(1) of the Expropriations Act.

The City of Toronto challenged the number of hours and the hourly rate billed by the claimant's counsel, and sought its own costs for the assessment.

The Tribunal found the claimant's counsel's hours and $700 hourly rate to be reasonable, rejecting the City's arguments and criticizing the City's counsel for inappropriate personal attacks.

The Tribunal deducted $5,667 for costs related to acquiring a replacement property but otherwise awarded the claimant $193,004 for the expropriation costs and an additional $20,250 for the costs of the application.

The municipality initiated an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to designate a new provincially significant wetland.

Two sets of appellants appealed the amendments.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal ordered that the appeals be severed because their factual underpinnings are site-specific.

Second Case Management Conferences were scheduled for both sets of appeals to address procedural orders, motions, and scheduling.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building in the Village of Yorkville.

The Tribunal found that the subject property is located within a designated low-rise area under Site and Area Specific Policy 211.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the policy boundary should be moved to accommodate the tall building, finding that the proposed development did not respect or reinforce the existing low-scale character of the neighbourhood.

The appeals were dismissed as the applications did not conform to the City's Official Plan.

Following a compensation proceeding under the Expropriations Act, the claimant sought an order for costs of over $1.1 million.

The respondent requested an adjournment of the costs assessment pending its appeal of the underlying merit decision to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding that the assessment of costs is not automatically stayed and that proceeding expeditiously was fair and efficient.

The Tribunal reviewed the contested items in the bill of costs, making minor deductions for unrelated utility negotiations and previously settled discovery motions, but largely upheld the claimant's costs as reasonable and reasonably incurred.

The Tribunal awarded $1,067,308 for the interim bill of costs and $64,359 for costs incurred on the application itself, with interest running from the date of the merit decision.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application to permit a 4-tower high-rise residential development on a portion of a former golf course, with the remainder dedicated as public open space.

The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority opposed the development, arguing it was located in a hazardous area (erosion hazard) and would negatively impact the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal found that the development site, located on a stable paleo terrace, was safe from natural hazards and that the proposed mitigation and restoration measures would result in no net negative impact on the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the OPA and ZBA in principle, while adjourning the Site Plan Application to allow the parties to resolve outstanding technical issues.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to consider the claimant's motion for leave to amend its Amended Notice of Arbitration in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The parties consented to the revised Proposed Amended Claim and a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal granted the motion for leave to amend and approved the Procedural Order, setting the schedule for the 15-day hearing.

The Claimant sought leave to amend its Notice of Arbitration to add claims for injurious affection and disturbance damages arising from the partial expropriation of its lands by the Respondent school board.

The Respondent opposed the amendment, arguing the injurious affection claim was statute-barred and lacked sufficient particulars.

The Tribunal found the claim was not statute-barred, as the Claimant sought the amendment within one month of discovering the alleged damage via an expert appraisal report.

However, the Tribunal agreed that the proposed amendments lacked sufficient particulars regarding quantum and factual basis.

The Tribunal directed the Claimant to provide further amendments detailing the particulars before leave would be granted.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the expansion of an existing sand and gravel pit.

The parties reached a settlement involving a revised Zoning By-law Amendment that limits the pit extension to a load and haul operation.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment has regard to matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and represents good planning.

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

The applicants appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 10-storey commercial building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal also scheduled a seven-day merit hearing for February 2026 and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey mixed-use residential building.

The central issues involved transportation matters, specifically parking stall sizes, parking ratios, and site access onto a major arterial road.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's transportation expert, finding the proposed parking stall sizes and ratios appropriate and the right-in, right-out access configuration safe.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of performance standards for non-residential uses.

The applicants brought a motion for directions under the Planning Act seeking a determination that their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment were complete.

The City of Hamilton had deemed the applications incomplete based on four outstanding items, including reformatted energy and financial reports, a recreation and school assessment, and sub-watershed planning.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the reports had already been provided and that the additional requirements were unreasonable for the purpose of deeming the applications complete.

The motion was granted and the applications were deemed complete.

The applicant appealed the failure of the approval authority to make a decision on a proposed draft plan of subdivision.

Following an interim decision that allowed the appeal in part contingent on certain pre-requisite matters, the Tribunal was notified that all pre-conditions were met.

The Tribunal issued a final order approving the draft plan of subdivision and conditions for draft plan approval, and directed that final approval be given by the City of Ottawa.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of a portion of its vacant property by the Regional Municipality of York for a bus rapid transit system.

The central issue was determining the highest and best use of the property before expropriation.

The Claimant argued for a 12-storey mixed-use development, while the Region argued for a low-rise commercial development, asserting that the Claimant's concept was not legally permissible due to required land dedications and policies influenced by the expropriation scheme.

The Tribunal rejected the Region's arguments, finding that the Claimant's pre-expropriation concept was legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally profitable.

The Tribunal awarded $857,493 for the fee simple taking, $1,502,067 for injurious affection to the remainder of the property, and $12,348 for a temporary easement.

Following a settlement hearing and an interim order, the Tribunal was advised that the precondition for the final order had been satisfied.

The Tribunal issued a final order dismissing the appeal regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 99 and allowing the appeals regarding the Zoning By-law Amendments in part, approving the draft amendments to permit a high-rise mixed-use building.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval due to the City's failure to make a decision.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbourhood association and participant status to 28 individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the City to consider the matter at an upcoming Council meeting.

The applicants brought a motion for costs in the amount of $35,000 against the appellants following a merit hearing regarding a development permit application.

The applicants alleged the appellants' conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by religious discrimination.

The Tribunal found the motion completely lacking in substance and merit, noting no evidence of discrimination and that the appellants' case, though unsuccessful, was not unreasonable or devoid of merit.

The motion for costs was denied.

The applicants appealed the Town's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit increased lot coverage for a new two-storey residential dwelling.

At the Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal noted that the matter had already been set for a written settlement hearing and no further order was required.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by the applicant regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit the development of five residential apartment buildings with heights ranging from 12 to 30 storeys.

The order establishes the issues list, procedural dates, and a 20-day hearing scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 26-storey rental apartment building.

Following a settlement hearing and based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

The Tribunal approved the redevelopment in principle and, after being advised that all pre-conditions were satisfied, ordered the amendment of Zoning By-law 569-2013.