Alex Lusty

Calloway REIT brought a motion to dismiss appeals filed by 70 Taunton Storage GP Corporation against an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a commercial self-storage facility on Calloway's lands.

The appellant argued the applications failed to provide for intersite connectivity and an easement between their adjacent properties.

The Tribunal found that the appeals did not disclose any genuine land use planning grounds, as a previous Tribunal decision between the same parties had already determined that the issue of an easement and intersite connectivity should be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage, not the zoning stage.

The motion to dismiss was granted without a hearing, and no costs were awarded.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed seven-storey mixed-use building, the Tribunal granted party and participant status to several individuals and a ratepayers' association.

The Tribunal resolved disputes over the Procedural Order, ruling that a minor error in the Notice of CMC did not invalidate it, directing a self-represented party to bring his preliminary motion regarding the scope of expert evidence by a specific date or face a bar on raising the issue, and determining that a party's residential address need not be published in the Procedural Order.

The parties requested a further Case Management Conference (CMC) to address details of phasing and outstanding matters in the Procedural Order regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC for February 24, 2022.

The City of Burlington brought a motion during a Case Management Conference to release the freeze on certain lands under an Interim Control By-law (ICBL).

The ICBL remained in effect due to appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) that applied only to a specific area near the Burlington GO Station.

The Tribunal found, based on uncontested planning evidence, that the ZBA did not apply to the lands outside its specific area.

Consequently, pursuant to s. 38(6.1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal's finding invoked the release of the ICBL for all remaining lands outside the ZBA area, allowing prior zoning to resume effect.

The appellant, Peel Condominium Corporation 395, appealed the City of Mississauga's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 28-storey development on an adjacent property.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, arguing the appellant lacked statutory status and failed to disclose valid land use planning grounds.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the appellant had not made the required oral or written submissions to City Council prior to the by-law's passage and failed to provide adequate planning grounds or expert evidence.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals without a hearing.

A case management conference was held to consider hearing appeals related to the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment 119, Zoning By-law Amendment 2020-418, and the new Official Plan together.

The Tribunal ordered the matters to be heard together for case management purposes.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a motion by 409 Brant St. Ltd., finding that ZBA 2020-418 does not apply to its site, which had the statutory effect of releasing the site from the Interim Control By-law and reinstating its prior zoning.

The appellant appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 362 (OPA 362), which guides the revitalization of the Dufferin-Wilson Regeneration Area.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to OPA 362.

Relying on the uncontested land use planning evidence of the City Planner, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the modified OPA 362.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the new Official Plan for the City of Burlington, as modified and approved by the Regional Municipality of Halton.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several requestors and set deadlines for the submission of issues lists and a draft Procedural Order.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled to address overlapping appeals with another Official Plan Amendment.

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs of $34,377.28 on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a settlement offer.

The appellant argued he was a public interest litigant and that no costs should be ordered.

The Divisional Court found the appellant did not demonstrate he was a public interest litigant and held that costs should follow the event.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Rule 49 did not apply, and instead awarded the respondent costs of $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by applying the 'Clergy principle' to allow the respondent's planning applications to be assessed under the policy regime in place when they were originally filed in 1990.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Clergy principle is a procedural policy choice within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, not a legal principle subject to appeal on a question of law.

The Court also found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons for its decision.