A. Jeanrie

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in its previous decision dated April 28, 2022.

The amendments added Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited as a party and corrected the spelling of a counsel's name from Calvin Lance to Calvin Lantz.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in a Replacement Decision and Order dated April 7, 2022.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal deleted and replaced the Title of Proceeding and the Appearances section.

In all other respects, the original Replacement Decision and Order remains unchanged.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan), the appellant 1941 Eglinton East Holdings Inc. brought a motion to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate land use designation for its lands.

The City opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that a motion regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction should be heard first.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's motion, finding it in the public interest to provisionally schedule the hearing pending the outcome of the City's jurisdictional motion, as doing so would offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and Port Lands Official Plan Modification.

The City advised that settlements had been reached with several parties and requested a settlement hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing for May 19, 2022, and a two-week merits hearing commencing July 4, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Central Waterfront Secondary Plan and Port Lands Official Plan Modification.

The parties presented a draft Procedural Order and thematic Issues List.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order, attempt to resolve specific built form issues, and scheduled a five-week hearing for May and June 2022.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment to permit the modernization of an existing industrial operation and add residential and retail uses.

At a case management conference, two adjoining landowners and the school board requested party status, citing common issues related to a proposed road and the Golden Mile Secondary Plan.

As there was no opposition, the Tribunal granted party status to all three requesters and directed the parties to produce an issues list.

The appellant appealed the Township's failure to approve a site plan amendment application within 30 days.

The application sought to replace an existing holding tank sewage disposal system at a marina with a new Ministry-approved tertiary sewage treatment system.

The Tribunal found that the proposed site plan and amending agreement met all statutory requirements, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the applicable Official Plans and Zoning By-law, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the site plan agreement was approved.

The applicants appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

During a status update hearing, the parties agreed to schedule a 14-day hearing on the merits.

The school board requested and was granted party status on consent to monitor the appeal and preserve its ability to work towards potentially building a new elementary school in the area.

The tribunal issued procedural directions and scheduled the hearing.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that the respondents fell within the transition provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and were entitled to a hearing on their appeals regarding aggregate resource uses.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the interpretation of the newly enacted legislation raised a point of law of sufficient public importance and that there was sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision.