Andrew Jeanrie

The appellant appealed a decision by the Town of Milton's Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance to reduce the minimum office component from 10% to 5% for two industrial buildings.

The Tribunal found that the variance met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, noting that the reduction allows for market condition-driven flexibility without impacting the built form.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was authorized.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township of Oro-Medonte's new Official Plan.

Prior to the hearing, two appellants withdrew their appeals.

The Township requested a delay in scheduling the hearing on the merits due to proposed Bill 185, which could retroactively remove the remaining appellants' appeal rights.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 2024 to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and to set hearing dates if necessary.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 17 Elm GP Inc. against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Westerkirk Capital Inc., and The Hospital for Sick Children, and participant status to TSCC2920.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence by video on January 13, 2025.

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 appellant appealed the City's failure to deal with a development charges complaint within the prescribed timelines.

The parties disputed the correct interpretation of an agreement regarding the $7,501,775.02 paid in development charges.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal agreed to the parties' joint request to determine the matter by way of a motion on a question of law and set the procedural schedule accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 688, which added a new complete application requirement for Site Plan Control.

The Tribunal deferred two requests for party status to a second CMC on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a second CMC for April 23, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by DRC (Markham) Inc. against the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications propose a mixed-use development with two 40-storey towers and nine townhouse units.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence on November 21, 2024.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision to permit a 59-unit residential subdivision.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties requested to convert the previously scheduled hearing into a CMC to allow more time for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, approved an updated Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a new 7-day video hearing for May 2024.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the applicant requested that hearing dates be scheduled for Fall 2024, arguing there would be sufficient time to incorporate any changes resulting from a related, pending official plan and zoning by-law amendment hearing.

The City opposed, arguing it was premature to schedule the hearing before the related appeals were resolved.

The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding it premature to schedule hearing dates when the nature of the application was likely to change, and directed that a second Case Management Conference be scheduled after the decision on the related appeals is issued.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto.

The applicant submitted a revised application, and the parties agreed to a revised Procedural Order and a new 14-day Merit Hearing date.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order, scheduled the Merit Hearing for March 11, 2024, and directed the parties' planning experts to provide an agreed Statement of Facts.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner and participant status to another individual.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to review the file and potentially open discussions.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision and requested that a merit hearing be scheduled.

The City opposed the request, arguing it was premature to schedule the hearing before a related Official Plan Amendment appeal decision was released.

The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding it premature to schedule a merit hearing because the parties had not yet submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 486 (the King-Spadina Secondary Plan).

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified OPA 486 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan, and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, allowing the appeals in part to approve OPA 486 as modified, subject to remaining site-specific appeals.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment No. 119.

The City provided a status update on its efforts to bring the Official Plan into conformity with Regional Official Plan Amendments 48 and 49 and Provincial Bill 23.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for November 2023, dispensed with the existing Phasing Plan, and cancelled the Phase 1B Natural Heritage hearing to allow parties to focus on settlements and uncontested portions of the Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3000-unit mixed-use community redevelopment.

The parties reached a full settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended planning instruments.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with four residential towers and a hotel.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced tower floor plates and overall gross floor area.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final by-law drafts and confirmation of infrastructure capacity.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an 80-storey mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 250-metre high development that conserves existing heritage buildings.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, contingent on the satisfaction of several pre-requisite conditions, and dismissed the Official Plan Amendment appeal as it was no longer required.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to increase the height of an under-construction mixed-use building by 9 storeys.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to several adjacent property owners and local residents' associations.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by HL General Partner Inc. against the City of Ottawa concerning development fees levied in connection with a building permit.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the conduct of the proceeding.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment for a mixed-use development at 1960 Eglinton Avenue East.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal that aligns with the Golden Mile Secondary Plan.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the amendment's form and the resolution of related appeals.