The appellant appealed the City's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.
Following the enactment of Bill 185, which restricted appeal rights, the Tribunal initially advised it no longer had jurisdiction.
The appellant brought a motion arguing it qualified as a 'specified person' under the amended Planning Act.
The Tribunal found that the appellant, as the holder of an Environmental Compliance Approval for a nearby property, met the definition of a 'specified person' because its appeal was based on inconsistency with the Provincial Policy Statement's land use compatibility policies.
The Tribunal ruled the appeals could proceed but were limited in scope to those compatibility policies.
A further motion was directed to determine if the appellant made the requisite written submissions to council prior to the OPA's enactment.