Andrew John Skinner

The City of London brought a motion on consent to approve modifications to its new Official Plan, the 'London Plan', to resolve all remaining City-wide appeals.

The modifications address building heights, residential intensification, and the removal of bonusing provisions in accordance with changes to the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence that the modifications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represent good planning.

The modifications were approved, bringing the London Plan fully into force except for a few remaining site-specific appeals.

The Requestor sought Party status in a Zoning By-law Amendment appeal regarding a mixed-use development.

The Requestor held a registered right to purchase commercial space in the development and raised concerns about the proposed parkland dedication affecting this right.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the Requestor's interest was a private legal matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, not a valid planning issue.

Furthermore, the Requestor failed to participate in the earlier municipal and Tribunal processes despite having notice.

The applicant appealed the Town of Whitby's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application for an 8-storey mixed-use building.

Through Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a reduced 3-6 storey building with increased setbacks and stepbacks.

Relying on the uncontroverted affidavit evidence of both parties' land use planners, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the draft instruments in principle, withholding its final order pending finalization of the documents.

The applicant sought costs of $109,056.02 against the Town following successful appeals to amend a zoning by-law and approve a site plan.

The applicant alleged the Town engaged in unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith conduct by delaying its issues list, enacting an interim control by-law to seek adjournments, and failing to present evidence at the hearing.

The Tribunal found no clearly unreasonable conduct, noting the issues list was submitted on time, the adjournment requests were brought with notice and raised substantive issues, and the failure to call witnesses avoided duplication and made for a more efficient hearing.

The motion for costs was denied.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding various remaining appeals to the City of London's new Official Plan, known as the 'London Plan'.

The Tribunal scheduled hearing dates for the remaining city-wide appeals and site-specific appeals, approved a Procedural Order, and provided directions for future case management conferences.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a proposed 35-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an abutting property owner, Roehampton Towers Inc., on consent.

The parties requested a future date to set a Procedural Order and Issues List or to convert the matter into a settlement hearing, as productive discussions were ongoing.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal concerning the designation of certain properties under the Ontario Heritage Act and the interpretation of provincial and municipal heritage planning provisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions of law relating to the Tribunal's consideration of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and the municipal Official Plan.

Costs of the motion were fixed and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant corporation appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision granting partial summary judgment to the respondent City in an expropriation compensation claim.

The Board had dismissed claims for damages pre-dating the announcement of the expropriation scheme, claims related to 1996 agreements, and claims of interference by statutory officials.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Board had the jurisdiction to apply the Rules of Civil Procedure, including granting partial summary judgment and weighing evidence.

Finding the Board's decisions reasonable, the court dismissed the appeal.