Albert Samson Frank

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision issued on June 22, 2023.

The amendment updated paragraph 14 to include the specific audio-only telephone line numbers and access code for persons wishing to connect to the event.

In all other respects, the original decision remained unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications for a 48-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner.

The parties agreed to proceed with the zoning by-law appeal first, scheduling a 10-day video hearing, while adjourning the site plan appeal sine die pending the outcome.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited, IPEX Inc., and Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited, noting they satisfied the legislative tests and were already parties to related Official Plan and Zoning By-law appeals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 3, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Approval, and Plan of Subdivision, as well as an appeal regarding a heritage designation.

The Tribunal granted party status to three adjacent property owners and participant status to a neighbourhood association.

A 10-day hearing was scheduled for August 2024, and the parties were directed to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a case management conference and settlement hearing regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231 (OPA 231).

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and deadlines for various site-specific appeals in Phase 6G.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard a motion by the City to settle appeals brought by Amexon Realty Inc. concerning lands at 701-703 Evans Avenue.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal approved modifications to OPA 231 and OPA 469 to redesignate the lands from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas, permitting residential and sensitive uses on a portion of the site while prioritizing office commercial uses and securing affordable housing.

The Amexon appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Tribunal held a case management conference and settlement hearing regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231 (OPA 231).

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and deadlines for various site-specific appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard and approved a settlement motion regarding the appeals by Amexon Realty Inc. for lands at 701-703 Evans Avenue.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal approved modifications to OPA 231 and OPA 469 to redesignate the lands from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas, permitting residential uses on a portion of the site while prioritizing office commercial uses.

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

The Tribunal reviewed the status of topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting settlements, withdrawals, and ongoing discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled the next video hearing for June 20, 2023, and directed parties to notify the City's counsel prior to proceedings to maintain an accurate appearances list.

The Appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a mixed-use building at 200 University Avenue.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for August 2, 2023, to finalize the procedural order and issues list, and to address a pending heritage designation.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision within the statutory timeframes.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted Party status to a neighbouring developer, limited to issues of servicing and infrastructure, and granted Participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing date, finding it premature without a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and instead scheduled a further Case Management Conference and set deadlines for the parties to confer and submit draft procedural documents.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to obtain status updates and set hearing dates for the remaining appeals (Phases 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G) of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231.

The Tribunal approved procedural orders for Phases 6D and 6E, scheduled a settlement hearing for Phase 6C, set 10-day merit hearings for Phases 6D and 6E, and scheduled a further case management conference for Phase 6G.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a multi-tower mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing three towers with 940 residential units, including 20 affordable housing units, and parkland conveyances.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle, subject to the satisfaction of prerequisite conditions.

The proposed intervenors, who are 40% shareholders of the respondent corporation, brought a motion for leave to intervene in applications concerning the management and interests of a residential property.

They alleged that a settlement reached by the respondent's representative was done without their required consent under a unanimous shareholders agreement.

The applicants objected based on the indoor management rule.

The court granted the motion to intervene, finding that the proposed intervenors had an interest in the proceeding and could be prejudiced by the outcome.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals to the City of Toronto's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on various hearing phases, site-specific appeals, and topic-specific appeals including cemeteries, parking regulations, propane storage, and multi-tenant housing.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 6, 2022, to provide further updates and address potential settlements.

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.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order for an appeal concerning Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a mixed-use residential development.

The Tribunal directed the parties to remove issues related to planning instruments that were not in force.

The finalized procedural order was appended to the decision.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a mixed-use residential development in Markham.

The Tribunal granted party status to the York Region District School Board on consent.

The Tribunal also granted a motion to modify the subject applications to include both the West and East Parcels and a three-tower concept development proposal, finding the modifications maintained the essential nature of the original applications.

Procedural directions were given and a hearing date was set.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 450.

The Tribunal consolidated the applicant's site-specific appeal of OPA 450 with its appeals of its Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plans.

A 9-day hearing was scheduled for the consolidated appeals, and directions were given for a revised Procedural Order.

The other applicant's appeal was separated to proceed on a stand-alone basis.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and a Heritage Conservation District designation, the Tribunal considered requests for party status and appellant substitution.

The Tribunal granted appellant status to the current owner of 619 Yonge Street, substituting them for the previous owner.

The Tribunal also granted party status to the owners of two abutting properties, allowing them to shelter under the 619 Yonge Street appeal, as the properties comprise a single site proposed for redevelopment.

Following a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 35-storey residential tower, the Tribunal issued a consent Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The plaintiffs and defendants, former business partners in the security surveillance equipment industry, brought competing motions for interlocutory injunctive relief following a bitter separation.

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the defendants from using a disputed trademark, accessing the plaintiffs' computer systems, and making defamatory statements.

The defendants cross-moved to enjoin the plaintiffs from competing and soliciting customers.

The court dismissed the trademark injunction, finding damages were an adequate remedy, but granted the injunctions regarding computer access, website redirection, and defamation.

The defendants' cross-motion was dismissed as premature and lacking evidence of irreparable harm.