Amber Stewart

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the new Official Plan for the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address procedural matters and a motion by the Town to bring unappealed portions of the Official Plan into force.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 21-storey residential building.

The City and TRCA brought a joint motion to strike certain witness statement evidence, which was granted in part.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and conformed to the applicable York Region Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft OPA and ZBA in principle, subject to a holding provision requiring a finalized Tree Removal, Compensation and Restoration Mitigation Plan.

The Tribunal considered a proposed partial settlement regarding appeals of the new Town of Collingwood Official Plan.

The settlement involved modifications to general policies to ensure consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, particularly concerning natural heritage and infrastructure.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the modifications, finding them consistent with provincial policy and good land use planning, without prejudice to remaining site-specific appeals.

The applicant appealed the Town of Milton Committee of Adjustment's decision denying a minor variance to permit an increased driveway width.

The applicant had expanded the driveway to accommodate parking for an Additional Residential Unit.

The Tribunal found that the variance did not have regard for matters of provincial interest due to safety concerns regarding emergency access.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the variance failed the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it resulted in excessive hardscaping, encroached on the Town's road allowance, and violated the Zoning By-law's parking orientation requirements.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order for appeals against the County of Simcoe's approval of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

Lorablue Developments Inc. requested an adjournment of its appeal, arguing it was site-specific and required ecological studies.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the appeal included broad policy issues that should be addressed at the scheduled hearing, though the parties could later agree to defer the issues if narrowed.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to adjourn the Phase 2B Hearing regarding appeals by the appellant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The City argued that there was insufficient time to prepare for the scheduled January 2026 dates due to the complexity of the issues and the need for expert coordination.

The appellant consented to a short adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing to commence in February 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Town proposed a revised hearing plan extending into 2027, which the Tribunal rejected due to its mandate for timely proceedings.

Instead, the Tribunal added ten hearing days in May 2026 and directed parties to advise if more time is needed for site-specific appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted an unopposed request by one appellant to adjourn its appeals sine die to allow for seasonal fieldwork and testing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a written settlement hearing and a telephone conference call to address a revised phased hearing plan and proposed settlements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 23, 2025.

The amendment revised paragraph 6 to update the deadlines for certain appellants to submit revisions to their issues lists on consent.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant Party Status to three entities on consent, noting they must shelter under the appellants' issues.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a 25-day merit hearing, and directed the parties to continue scoping issues and exploring settlement.

A case management conference was held to schedule the Phase 2A and Phase 2B hearings regarding appeals for a proposed 21-storey residential development in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day Phase 2A hearing to address natural heritage and hazard land issues, and a 10-day Phase 2B hearing for remaining planning issues.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 770, which redesignates certain properties and extends a park area.

A Telephone Conference Call was held to address scheduling matters.

On consent, the parties requested an adjournment of the merit hearing due to a scheduling conflict.

The City also requested a motion for direction regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction over the redesignation of one of the properties.

The Tribunal adjourned the merit hearing, set dates for the motion for direction to proceed in writing, and established a deadline for the procedural order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal concerning Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 727 and Zoning By-law 608-2024 in the City of Toronto.

The order establishes the organization of the hearing, pre-hearing requirements, a summary of dates, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the proposed order of evidence.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on November 3, 2025, for a duration of five days.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 770, which redesignates certain properties as Parks or Park Expansion Areas.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a residents' association and an individual on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a telephone conference call to finalize the procedural order and set a five-day merit hearing for September 2025.

The opposing parties brought a motion for costs against the appellant following the appellant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing and its last-minute withdrawal of a related appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the appellant's conduct was unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith, as it failed to provide notice of its non-attendance, failed to file evidence, and withdrew the appeal without adequate warning.

The TLAB awarded costs to the opposing parties, reduced by one-third to account for expenses that would have been incurred prior to the deadline for submitting witness statements, resulting in a total award of $15,128.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Vaughan brought a motion for directions to phase the hearing of an appeal regarding a proposed 21-storey residential development.

The moving parties sought a Phase 2A hearing to determine natural heritage and hazard issues (the permissible building envelope) before a Phase 2B hearing on remaining planning issues.

The appellant argued the motion was barred by issue estoppel due to a prior review disposition.

The Tribunal found issue estoppel did not apply, as the prior disposition did not decide the phasing request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that determining the permissible building envelope is a threshold issue and that phasing the hearing would provide the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the appeals.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Vaughan brought a motion requesting a phased hearing for appeals concerning a proposed 21-storey residential development on lands with environmental designations.

The moving parties sought a Phase 2A hearing to determine the permissible building envelope based on natural heritage and hazard issues, followed by a Phase 2B hearing for remaining planning issues.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing it was barred by issue estoppel due to a prior review disposition.

The Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not apply, as the prior disposition did not decide the phasing request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, concluding that the environmental issues are threshold matters and that a phased approach would provide the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the appeals.

Multiple appeals were brought under subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act regarding the adoption of a new town-wide Official Plan by the Town of Collingwood, as approved by the County of Simcoe.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four requesting entities without objection.

The Tribunal deferred three requests for party status until the next CMC or until an Issues List is formalized, to allow the proposed parties to identify which issues they will shelter under pursuant to Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A second CMC was scheduled to consider the deferred requests and further organize the appeals.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 727 and Zoning By-Law No. 608-2024, the Tribunal granted party status to several landowners.

The Tribunal also granted motions pursuant to section 34(31) of the Planning Act to geographically scope the appeals, deeming the Zoning By-law to have come into force for specific properties, allowing their redevelopment to proceed while the broader appeals continue.