Amber Stewart

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to create a new residential lot and construct additions to an existing dwelling and detached garage on a property located within a heritage conservation district.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, accepting uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal satisfies the criteria for consent under the Planning Act and that the variances meet the four tests, being minor, desirable, and maintaining the intent of the official plan and zoning by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to organize hearing dates for Phase 6C – South West Etobicoke appeals from the City of Toronto's proposed Official Plan Amendment 231.

The Tribunal approved a Procedural Order for Hearing Group No. 1 and scheduled hearing dates for Hearing Groups 1, 2, and 3, as well as a settlement hearing regarding the Champagne Centre.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard Phase 2 of appeals regarding the Yonge and Bernard Key Development Area (KDA) Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law in the City of Richmond Hill.

The hearing focused on site-specific development applications and policies for the eastern quadrants and the Di Pede lands in the northwest quadrant.

The Tribunal approved the City's proposed modifications, which were supported by expert planning, transportation, and environmental evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the Greenway System designation and natural hazard buffer requirements for the northeast quadrant, dismissing the appeals of North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC), which failed to call any evidence.

All other appeals were dismissed, bringing the Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law into effect for the remaining lands.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's refusal to enact an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit the continued use of a two-storey residential building as a commercial medical office.

Following a 2018 hearing, the Tribunal issued a decision approving the applications but did not withhold its final order pending the City's internal review of the draft instruments.

The parties subsequently reached a consensus on minor technical revisions to the instruments, including limiting the permitted gross floor area to 585 square metres.

Based on the uncontested affidavit evidence of a professional planner, the Tribunal amended its previous order to approve the final Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments, finding the changes respected principles of good planning.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 4-storey multi-unit residential building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal for 30 dwelling units in a stacked townhouse building conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle and withholding the final order pending the finalization of the instruments and a Section 37 Agreement.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent to sever and associated minor variances to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot while retaining an existing dwelling with potential heritage value.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and the appeal proceeded unopposed.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed severance met the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

The appeal was allowed, provisional consent was granted, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to settle the Issues and Procedural Order for Phase 2 of a hearing regarding multiple appeals of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Tribunal approved the City's proposed Hearing Plan, which divided the hearing into four sub-phases, and rejected attempts by North Elgin Centre Inc. to expand the issues list to include area-wide matters such as the location of the Bernard Bus Terminal.

The Tribunal also corrected a minor omission in a previous zoning by-law amendment and dismissed a renewed motion for recusal.

The appellants appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding the Ontario Municipal Board's finding that an amendment to the City of London's Official Plan (OPA 403) was valid.

The appellants argued that OPA 403 impermissibly delegated authority by making a separate guideline determinative in designating woodlands as significant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the respondents that the Official Plan remains paramount and the City's discretion is not fettered by the guideline.

The applicants sought leave to appeal decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board that approved a development application.

The applicants argued the approval effectively down-zoned a neighbouring property by creating a key lot, without a rezoning application being before the Board.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's jurisdiction to change zoning without following the procedures in the Planning Act, and concluding the issue was of sufficient importance to municipalities to warrant the attention of the full panel.

The moving parties brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing their application to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a 2007 judgment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's finding that the moving parties failed to explain their two-year delay or their failure to appear before the original judge.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) which denied their motion to dismiss the respondent's appeal without a hearing.

The moving parties argued that the OMB had improperly made final determinations on their defences of res judicata and laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's decision was interlocutory and merely determined that the issues were worthy of a full hearing, despite the OMB's reasons going further than necessary.

The respondent, a former director of a corporation, sought a declaration that his insurer owed a duty to defend him against a counterclaim brought by the corporation.

The insurer denied coverage based on an 'insured v. insured' exclusion clause in the Directors' and Officers' Liability Policy.

The application judge found a duty to defend, relying on American authorities that considered the purpose of the exclusion clause.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the exclusion clause was unambiguous and clearly excluded coverage for claims brought by the corporation against its directors.

As the claim fell outside coverage, there was no duty to defend.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board which found that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their land under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The appellants' land, located in a Natural Core Area and accessible only by private road, did not permit the construction of a single dwelling under the applicable zoning by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Board that the definition of a bed and breakfast establishment limits such use to a single dwelling that is the principal residence, which could not be built on the appellants' property.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review.

The respondents argued the application was moot because they had sought approval of a second site plan.

The Divisional Court rejected the mootness argument and held it had jurisdiction under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act to stay the application.

The court ordered the application for judicial review stayed pending the final disposition of the appeal of the second site plan to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, noting that if the second site plan is approved, the application will become moot.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, which held that a bed and breakfast establishment was not a permitted principal use of their lands under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Board had concluded that a bed and breakfast could only be established in an existing dwelling.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Board's restrictive interpretation of the Conservation Plan was open to serious debate and that the point of law warranted appellate attention given the legislation's broad impact.