Andrew Biggart

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 and Zoning By-law 702-2024, which regulate development on Ookwemin Minising (formerly Villiers Island) in Toronto's Port Lands.

The modifications address building heights, density, land uses, and meanwhile uses.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with the applicable Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by the applicant concerning the failure of the Town of Ajax and the Region of Durham to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and site plan control.

The applications propose a development of 660 residential units, a school block, park block, stormwater management block, and environmental protection block.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing June 8, 2026.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit 161 townhouse units.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, set deadlines for participant statements and the procedural order, and scheduled a nine-day video hearing for January 2027.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit stacked townhouses.

Prior to the merits hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment on consent to revise its proposal to address the Town's concerns.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding it would ensure a fair and expeditious hearing, and scheduled a three-day hearing for May 2026.

The appellant appealed the enactment of a Development Charges By-law by the Township of Severn.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties provided an update, submitted a draft Procedural Order, and requested dates for a five-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled the hearing.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Stylux Bowmanville Inc. against the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make decisions on applications for a 97-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority on consent and participant status to Nadine Taylor without objection.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled, and the parties were directed to file a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding three related appeals concerning development charges and site plan application fees for a proposed development in Stoney Creek.

The Tribunal ordered that the three matters be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled, and the parties were directed to submit a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Town opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the small-scale Main Street character and failed to conform to the Urban Structure.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development conforms to the Regional and Town Official Plans, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and achieves compatibility with the surrounding area through appropriate urban design, setbacks, and stepbacks.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its Final Order pending the finalization of the zoning instruments.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and its refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a two-storey Buddhist temple.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal with increased parking and a redesigned building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, York Region Official Plan, and local planning documents.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building in the Village of Yorkville.

The Tribunal found that the subject property is located within a designated low-rise area under Site and Area Specific Policy 211.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the policy boundary should be moved to accommodate the tall building, finding that the proposed development did not respect or reinforce the existing low-scale character of the neighbourhood.

The appeals were dismissed as the applications did not conform to the City's Official Plan.

The applicants appealed the Town of Orangeville's refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a 12-unit residential development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence in April 2026.

The parties were directed to submit a final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings leading up to and including the hearing of an appeal by the appellant against the municipality's Development Charge By-law No. 13-2025.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on March 16, 2026, for a duration of 10 days.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building and 63 townhouses.

The municipality argued the proposed height and density were incompatible with the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood and lacked affordable housing content.

The Tribunal found the proposed development represented an efficient use of underutilized land, provided appropriate transition to the existing neighbourhood, and conformed to the applicable provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle subject to finalization of site-specific exceptions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application to permit a 4-tower high-rise residential development on a portion of a former golf course, with the remainder dedicated as public open space.

The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority opposed the development, arguing it was located in a hazardous area (erosion hazard) and would negatively impact the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal found that the development site, located on a stable paleo terrace, was safe from natural hazards and that the proposed mitigation and restoration measures would result in no net negative impact on the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the OPA and ZBA in principle, while adjourning the Site Plan Application to allow the parties to resolve outstanding technical issues.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Ledim Developments Ltd. against the Town of Ajax's Development Charges By-law No. 13-2025.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence on March 16, 2026, by video hearing.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered requests to have multiple appeals regarding the Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendments and a site-specific appeal by Argo Neyagawa Corporation heard together.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the matters to be heard together and adjourned the previously scheduled hearing dates for the site-specific appeal.

The Tribunal also granted party status to 1816985 Ontario Inc. and Sherborne Lodge Development et al. in the site-specific appeal, as they have a direct interest.

A finalized Procedural Order and Issues List were approved to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the passing of the Town of Aurora Official Plan, seeking to modify the boundary of the Promenade Secondary Plan to reflect a consistent boundary for its lands and to permit a maximum building height of 12 storeys.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the official plan would be modified to provide the requested consistent boundary, and the appellant would drop the building height issue, deferring it to a future site-specific application.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed modifications were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conformed with the regional official plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Regional Municipality of Halton's approval of the new City of Burlington Official Plan, as well as appeals against OPA 119 and ZBL 418.

The Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to Canadian National Railway Company, substituted Inaria Burlington Inc. for Burlington Healthcare Centre Inc., and scheduled a motion hearing to consider dismissing certain appeals and addressing potential settlements.

The appellant appealed the failure of the Town of Ajax and the Region of Durham to make decisions on various planning applications for a proposed development of 660 residential units.

The key issue was whether the appellant should be liable for a pro rata portion of a cost-sharing agreement for road and bridge widening, or if those works should be funded through a Development Charge By-law.

The Tribunal found that the access function is a local service and the widening works are growth-related infrastructure improvements that directly benefit the development.

The Tribunal approved the contested condition requiring the appellant to bear the cost.