Sharon L. Dionne

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 21-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 18-storey building.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with the municipal official plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a 40-storey mixed-use building with 536 residential units.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order, scheduled a nine-day video hearing to commence on November 18, 2025, and finalized the Issues List and order of evidence.

The appellant appealed its applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to the Ontario Land Tribunal due to the City's failure to make a decision within the statutory timeframes.

At the scheduled hearing, the parties advised that a settlement was imminent and requested the hearing be converted to a Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting property owner on consent, conditionally granted participant status to local residents, and scheduled a future hearing to consider the settlement.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 21-storey residential tower.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider consolidation of appeals and finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

Following a case management conference, High-Tech Realty Inc. submitted a request for party status in the appeals concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the property at 4696 Yonge Street.

With the consent of the existing parties, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to High-Tech Realty Inc.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 40-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day hearing for November 2025 and directed the parties to submit a finalized procedural order.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Bovaird West Holdings Inc. against the City of Brampton's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties disputed whether certain issues proposed by CN, relating to the interpretation and relevance of specific provincial and municipal planning policies, should be included on the Issues List.

The Tribunal ruled that the proposed issues pertain to land use planning policies within its purview and allowed them to be included, noting that their relevance would be appropriately adjudicated at the hearing.

The Tribunal also granted a request to adjourn the previously scheduled nine-day hearing, rescheduling it as a five-day hearing in July 2025, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Mod-Aire Homes Limited against the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, Millford Development Limited, and participant status to Ellen Mitchell-Krever.

A procedural order was approved, and an 11-day hearing on the merits was scheduled to commence in November 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 58-storey mixed-use tower.

The parties agreed on all procedural matters, including a revised draft Issues List and Procedural Order.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a five-week hearing on the merits for November and December 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by K2 GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for a 12-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on November 3, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications for a 12-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted conditional participant status to a neighbouring landowner, scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits for the zoning appeal, and held the site plan appeal in abeyance pending the outcome of the zoning appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Microbjo Properties Inc. against the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application.

The Tribunal granted party status to Sanofi Pasteur Limited, The Governing Council of the University of Toronto, and Dufferin and Steeles Corporation.

Participant status was granted to Allan Glube and the Glen Shields Ratepayers Association.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for September 12, 2025, to allow the parties to engage in dispute resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Southside Construction Management Ltd. against the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc for its failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a drive-thru restaurant.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order setting the hearing for June 9, 2025, and establishing the issues list, order of evidence, and filing deadlines.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6.

Several appellants withdrew their appeals.

The remaining appellants, Harry and Pamela Harakh, consented to scoping their appeal to specific lands.

The Tribunal ordered that OPA 18.6 comes into effect, except for the policies and schedules applying to the scoped lands, and scheduled a motion hearing regarding jurisdiction.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to recognize a retaining wall within a shoreline buffer and conditionally approving a variance for a floating dock.

The Tribunal found that the retaining wall functioned as a permitted flood and erosion control facility rather than a hard landscaping amenity.

The Tribunal authorized both variances, concluding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, subject to conditions reducing the retaining wall's height and implementing a landscape plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Southside Construction Management Ltd. against the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc's refusal to amend its Zoning By-law to permit a drive-thru restaurant.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighboring resident.

The parties agreed on procedural matters and the Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing for June 2025, ordering the parties to deliver a finalized Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of London's failure to make a decision on a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision for the former McCormick Factory site.

The parties reached a settlement on the draft plan and conditions of approval, which include medium density residential blocks, a park block, and the conservation of the historic factory building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Welland's refusal to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a mixed-use apartment and street townhouse development.

The parties reached a settlement involving a revised proposal for a seven-storey mixed-use building and 25 townhouses.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and local planning documents.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The appellants appealed the Township's passing of an amending zoning by-law concerning the definition of an 'improved street' and conditions for issuing building permits on lots without frontage on an improved street.

The parties engaged in mediation and presented a settlement with proposed modifications to the by-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with applicable official plans, and representative of good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.