Bolajoko Olufunmilayo Ogunmefun

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing to address an appeal by Tien De Religion Canada regarding the City of Vaughan's 2010 Official Plan.

The parties agreed to modifications permitting a detached dwelling and agricultural uses on the appellant's property, which is largely bounded by the Humber River.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with provincial policies and the Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the modifications, finding them to represent good planning in the public interest.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 20-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 21-storey building, which was endorsed by City Council.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested land use planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the site plan is finalized.

The appellants appealed the Vaughan Official Plan and the Vaughan Mills Centre Secondary Plan, seeking to convert a portion of their employment lands to a Mixed Use designation to permit residential development.

The tribunal applied the conversion tests under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

While finding that the proposed concept plan had qualitative merits and could address need, the tribunal concluded that the conversion failed to maintain a significant number of jobs on the lands and would adversely affect the overall viability of the surrounding employment area.

The tribunal denied the requested conversion and the related request to identify the lands as a Primary Centre, directing the parties to prepare modifications for a Phase 2 hearing.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 13, 2021, pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The amendment corrected a paragraph reference to include an additional page from the Motion Record and attached the missing schedule.

Several property owners appealed the City of Vaughan's 2010 Official Plan regarding policies affecting the Centre Street Corridor.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modified policies and map schedules to allow for increased building heights, density, and mixed uses along the transit corridor while ensuring appropriate transition to adjacent low-rise neighbourhoods.

The Tribunal denied a late request for Party status from a ratepayers association.

Accepting the uncontested expert planning evidence that the modified policies are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conform with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represent good planning, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the modified policies.

The respondents in an appeal brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence regarding subsequent actions the Township proposed to take to remedy inconsistencies in its zoning by-laws.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the potential remedial work by the Township would not assist in interpreting the by-law under review.

The court held that the proposed evidence did not meet the test for fresh evidence, as it was not necessary to deal fairly with the issues on appeal and declining to admit it would not lead to a substantial injustice.

Following a successful application challenging the issuance of a building permit for a riding arena, the applicants sought costs exceeding $60,000 on a full indemnity basis.

The respondents disputed the amount and argued that the issues were straightforward and that the applicants’ settlement offer was invalid under Rule 49.

The court applied the factors under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

The court reduced the applicants’ claimed fees due to duplication of counsel and high billing rates and rejected reliance on the settlement offer.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis and ordered payable jointly and severally by the respondents.

The applicants appealed a decision by the Township's Chief Building Official to issue a building permit for the construction of a riding arena on a neighbouring property.

The subject property was located within the Oak Ridges Moraine Linkage Zone, which permitted agricultural uses but not riding arenas.

The court found that the riding arena was not a permitted agricultural use under the zoning by-law and that its construction constituted major development requiring a watershed plan under the Official Plan.

The court concluded that the building permit was issued in error, rescinded the Chief Building Official's decision, and revoked the permit.

Following an application concerning enforcement of a municipal emergency order affecting the health and safety of an occupant of a residential building, the successful municipality sought costs.

The respondent had previously made a settlement offer that was rejected.

The court considered the factors governing costs, including success, reasonable value of the work performed, the settlement offer, and the expectations of the losing party.

Finding the respondent’s offer less favourable than the judgment obtained and noting that the applicant acted reasonably in withdrawing part of its claim, the court declined to depart from the usual rule that the unsuccessful party pays costs.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

A municipality sought confirmation of an emergency order issued under s. 15.7(1) of the Building Code Act after a municipal law enforcement officer discovered an apartment in extreme unsanitary condition posing a potential health risk to occupants and others in the building.

The municipality arranged for emergency cleaning and sought to recover remediation costs, administrative fees, and legal expenses from the property owner by adding the amount to the tax roll.

The owner argued the tenant should be responsible, the emergency designation was unreasonable, and the cleanup costs were excessive.

The court confirmed the emergency order and held the owner responsible for remediation costs relating to the property condition.

However, the court modified the recoverable amount by removing expenses related to cleaning the tenant’s personal belongings and reserved decision on administrative fees and legal costs.

Costs decision following an application concerning ownership and control of a lakeside promenade shown on a subdivision plan.

The municipality was largely successful in establishing ownership of the land held for the benefit of the public and immunity from claims of adverse possession, though it failed on its argument that the land constituted a public highway and the respondents secured a future trial on laches regarding existing shoreline structures.

The respondents argued that the proceeding constituted public interest litigation and that success was divided.

The court found the municipality to be the more successful party but recognized the respondents’ contribution to resolving a longstanding public dispute and to advancing legal issues affecting public access.

Applying reductions for the public interest component and the respondents’ cooperative conduct, the court substantially reduced the municipality’s recoverable costs.

The Township of Oro-Medonte brought an application for a declaration that a strip of waterfront land known as Lake Shore Promenade, shown on a 1914 plan of subdivision, was a public highway owned by the municipality.

The respondent abutting lot owners argued that the land was not a public highway and claimed possessory title through adverse possession, having maintained the land and built shore-related structures on it for decades.

The court held that while the original owner intended to dedicate the land as a public highway, the Township's acceptance of it as such was void because the land did not meet the statutory width requirements for a highway in 1914.

Instead, the land was held by the Township in trust for the public as an access way and lakeside park.

The court further held that municipally owned land held for public benefit is immune from adverse possession claims, and in any event, the respondents failed to establish exclusive and adverse possession.

However, the court found a prima facie case that the doctrine of laches could apply to prevent the Township from removing existing shore-related structures due to its long-standing acquiescence, and directed a trial on that issue.