Andrew Baker

The Tribunal held a telephone conference call to receive an update on an interim order regarding a site plan appeal for the development of two 12-storey apartment buildings.

The parties advised they were scoping the conditions of site plan approval and anticipated further review.

The Tribunal directed the parties to report back in writing with a suggested path forward.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings for an appeal regarding an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment in the City of Vaughan.

The hearing is scheduled for 10 days commencing September 14, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Livingston Realty Holdings Inc. concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 35-storey residential building.

On consent of the statutory parties, the Tribunal granted party status to Scarboro Golf & Country Club and participant status to an adjacent resident.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing for August 2026 and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The City of Waterloo proposed to expropriate lands owned by the claimant to facilitate the redevelopment of a municipal parking lot and surrounding areas.

The claimant requested a Hearing of Necessity under section 7 of the Expropriations Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposed expropriation was a necessary step to achieve coordinated urban development and was reasonably defensible in achieving the City's objectives.

The Tribunal reported that the taking met the statutory test.

The applicant opposed the inclusion of certain Provincial Planning Statement and Vaughan Official Plan policies in the Issues List for a Phase 2 Hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of policies related to child-care facilities, accessibility, interface compatibility, multi-modal transportation systems, and additional studies, finding they could be relevant to the interface design.

However, the Tribunal disallowed a policy regarding transitions in scale, noting that matters of transition regarding podium and tower heights were already endorsed in the Phase 1 decision and would not be re-litigated.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim decision and order of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded agreed costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The Building Industry and Land Development Association appealed the Toronto Catholic District School Board's Education Development Charges By-law 2023 No.195.

The appellant argued that the School Board failed to meet statutory eligibility requirements by excluding the capacity of leased secondary schools from its calculations.

The Tribunal found that the School Board acted fairly and reasonably, in accordance with the legislation and Ministry guidelines, by excluding leased capacity from its determination of total capacity.

The appeal was dismissed and the by-law remains in force.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to establish a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) for the redevelopment of the Centrepoint Mall site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement on a Revised SASP that will guide the future mixed-use redevelopment of the site, including new public streets, a central park, and high-density residential and commercial uses near a planned subway station.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the Revised SASP consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, and allowed the appeal in part to approve the policy.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-rise, mixed-use residential development comprising four towers and 2,339 apartment units.

The City argued that existing transportation and infrastructure constraints required a cap on population and a reduction in the scale of development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area, would optimize the use of existing infrastructure and support transit and active transportation.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, subject to Holding provisions to ensure transportation and servicing capacity at the time of construction, and directed a Phase 2 hearing to determine the final form of the amendments.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications to permit two 12-storey apartment buildings and a public park.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The claimants brought a motion seeking post-judgment interest on their settled costs and an order that the respondent was not entitled to set off costs awarded to it by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The Tribunal found that because the parties had settled the costs without a Tribunal order, post-judgment interest under section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act did not accrue.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to vary or relieve the claimants from costs orders made by appellate courts.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that a settlement had been reached in related appeals concerning a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for the same development.

The Tribunal granted a request to consolidate the present appeal with the related appeals to be heard at the scheduled settlement hearing.

The court grants sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of the child to the applicant, Melis Kocabas, following a history of family violence and the respondent's non-participation.

The court also imputes income to the respondent, Yavuz Polat, for child support purposes, orders retroactive and ongoing support, and issues a restraining order for the safety of the applicant and child.

The decision applies the best interests of the child test, the law on imputation of income, and the principles for granting restraining orders.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for the Centrepoint Mall site, and appeals of the City-initiated Yonge Street North Secondary Plan (OPA 615).

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Vaughan without objection.

The parties agreed to schedule a 10-day merit hearing and submitted a draft Procedural Order, which the Tribunal approved and appended to its decision.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application.

The Tribunal granted party status to the City of Vaughan without objection.

The parties agreed to finalize a Procedural Order and schedule a 10-day merit hearing commencing in April 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Tricar Properties Limited against the City of Guelph's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, granted participant status to an additional individual, approved the Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a motion hearing for discovery, and added five additional days to the scheduled hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the Town of Caledon's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The parties reported they are actively working toward a resolution and requested further time to finalize planning instruments.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 2024 and a Hearing on the Merits for February 2025, with directions for filing settlement materials or a procedural order.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's calculation of development charges for 20 disputed units in a residential development, arguing they should be classified as 'Large Apartment' rather than 'Multiple Dwelling Unit'.

The appellant contended that the units' size and servicing needs were akin to apartments and that the charges exceeded the capital costs arising from the increase in need for services.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the built form of the units, which lacked a shared corridor and had separate entrances, caused them to function like ground-related housing.

The Tribunal concluded the units were correctly categorized as 'Multiple Dwelling Unit' under the City's by-law.

The parties requested on consent to adjourn the hearing scheduled for May 2024 regarding the proposed redevelopment of 7887 Weston Road.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the parties to engage in Tribunal-led mediation and rescheduled the 20-day merit hearing to commence in January 2025.

A revised Procedural Order was issued to govern the rescheduled hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development with 524 units.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which includes relocating a heritage building, providing a midblock connection, and dedicating parkland, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the amending instruments and the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement.