Andrew Biggart

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to increase the permitted height of a mixed-use building from 85 to 94 storeys.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit a 91-storey building.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan, noting it would provide additional housing and serve as a landmark without creating unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amendments were approved in principle.

The applicant appealed the city's refusal of its official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 38-storey residential building.

During a case management conference, the city opposed the applicant's request to proceed to the scheduled merit hearing with a revised development proposal, arguing the deadline for revisions in the procedural order had passed.

The tribunal allowed the applicant to proceed with a revised proposal, finding that the prejudice to the applicant of being forced to proceed on an abandoned proposal outweighed the prejudice to the city.

The tribunal limited the permitted revisions to a decrease in storeys and height, and granted a short adjournment to allow the city to respond.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a transit-oriented development at 88 Steeles Avenue West.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, which permits two high-rise residential towers, represents good planning and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of specified conditions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing for February 2025.

Additionally, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority was removed as a party on consent, as it had reached an agreement with the applicant on conditions of approval.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Whitby's Official Plan Amendment No. 126.

The appellants, owners of properties on Brock Street North, appealed the OPA to protect their respective mixed-use redevelopment proposals.

Bara Group (Whitby) Inc. requested and was granted party status.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 28, 2024, to allow the parties further time for dialogue and to present options to Town Council.

The applicant brought a motion for directions regarding an interim order that approved a zoning by-law amendment and site plan in principle, following a settlement.

The applicant sought to modify the development to increase density after the Town removed density limits in its Official Plan.

The Town argued this was a breach of contract.

The Tribunal found it unnecessary to rule on jurisdiction, noting the applicant could pursue a minor variance.

The Tribunal also ruled that the interim order did not require the applicant to execute a site plan agreement before the final order was released, preferring the applicant's evidence on municipal practice.

The final order was issued.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a nine-storey mid-rise building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that resolved all issues, including a revised parking supply.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with local plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 13-storey residential development.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification, a 13-storey building would be excessive and conflict with the planned context.

The Tribunal approved the redesignation to Medium-High Density Residential but limited the maximum building height to 7 storeys, requiring a transition to lower-density townhouses.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's request for a reduced parking standard but agreed that a Holding provision for servicing was unnecessary.

The appeals were allowed in part.

The City of Markham brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 12-day merit hearing regarding appeals for non-decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The City argued the hearing was premature pending the completion of the Yonge Corridor Secondary Plan.

The Applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing it would cause prejudicial delay and violate the Clergy Principle.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the City had sufficient guidance to assess the applications, and that the prejudice of delay and the need for procedural fairness outweighed the City's concerns.

The City of Burlington brought an uncontested motion for partial approval of its new Official Plan.

The motion sought approval for policies that were either not subject to appeal or modified to reflect existing site-specific approvals from the 1997 Official Plan.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the City's Senior Planner, the Tribunal found that the policies satisfied all statutory tests, were consistent with provincial policies, represented good planning, and were in the public interest.

The motion for partial approval was granted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment 155 by Acorn NE Stouffville Inc. and Northcape Investments Inc. The parties worked to narrow the scope of the appeals and finalize an Issues List, particularly concerning land use designations and road alignments within the Old Elm Major Transit Station Area.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals concerning the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together, granted participant status to a neighboring landowner, and scheduled further conferences to address a party status request by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and potential settlements.

A four-week merit hearing was scheduled for March 2025.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a proposed Official Plan Amendment, the parties advised the Tribunal that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested new hearing dates.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for October 2024 and directed the parties to provide an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Whitby's Official Plan Amendment 130, which introduces policies for residential infill and intensification.

The parties advised that settlement discussions were ongoing and requested a second CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for June 18, 2024, and directed the parties to provide a draft Procedural Order or settlement materials prior to that date.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the new official plan for the City of Burlington concerning aggregate resource policies.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the proposed modifications to the official plan, finding they satisfy statutory requirements, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform to provincial and regional plans, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to give effect to the settlement.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order directing the City of Mississauga to provide further disclosure of background data related to the Development Charges By-law No. 0133-2022.

The Tribunal found that the appellant demonstrated relevance and necessity for the requested information to ensure the best evidence is presented at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the City to use its best efforts to respond to the outstanding requests and amended the issues list as agreed by the parties.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under the Planning Act after the Town of Ajax refused to accept its site plan applications.

The Town argued the applications were premature because the required pre-consultation meeting had not occurred and the related official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision were not yet in effect.

The Tribunal found that the Town's refusal was not authorized by the Planning Act, as the municipality cannot use a pre-consultation by-law to indefinitely delay or refuse an application, nor can it demand an approved OPA, ZBA, or DPS as a complete application requirement unless explicitly stated in the official plan.

The Tribunal deemed the applications complete as of June 30, 2023.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Site Plan to permit a mixed-use development featuring 40-storey and 23-storey buildings.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement on the Zoning By-law Amendment.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with the Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including heritage conservation agreements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 26, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicant regarding a proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of three residential apartment buildings and twelve townhouse blocks in the Town of Aurora.

The appellants appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 155 by the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the Region of York.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted non-appellant party status to several entities on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.