Brendan O’Callaghan

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its March 14, 2023 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the list of appearances was amended to add S. Kaufman as counsel for three of the parties.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79 (Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted Party Status on consent to the Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, noting that 13 issues remained outstanding pending upcoming Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 2023.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 14-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert evidence that the proposed development is appropriate, fits harmoniously with the existing context, and meets the intent of the applicable policy framework.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment, finding it represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79, which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to Timberworx Custom Homes Inc. and provisional party status to Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues Lists, and an eight-week merit hearing was scheduled to commence in January 2024.

The appellants appealed the City's Development Charge By-law.

The dispute centered on whether a portion of a road crossing through the appellants' properties should be classified as an Arterial Road or a Major Collector Road.

The City argued it was a Major Collector Road and thus a 'local service' for which development charges could not be imposed, requiring the developers to pay the construction costs.

The Tribunal found that the road portion was an Arterial Road, not a local service, and therefore subject to the imposition of development charges.

The Tribunal directed the City to fund the costs through development charges or general revenues and prohibited the City from recovering the costs from the appellants as a condition of subdivision approval.

The applicants sought a determination of the value of their lands under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act to calculate the correct cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The applicants had paid $13,520,539.95 under protest and sought a refund based on a lower land valuation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' appraisers and economists, finding that a 12.5% downward adjustment for the COVID-19 pandemic and a 7.5% adjustment for view/shadow encumbrances were reasonable.

The Tribunal determined the market value of the lands to be $111,660,000 and ordered the City to refund $4,698,173.95 for the parkland payment, plus $9,686.08 for overcharged appraisal fees.

The claimants brought a motion for a Procedural Order requiring the disclosure of a business loss report by the respondents and the scheduling of examinations for discovery in an expropriation proceeding.

During the Case Management Conference, the parties settled the motion and agreed to hearing dates.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled an eight-day hearing for September 2022, along with a further Case Management Conference for March 2022.

The appellants appealed the levying of fees imposed by the City of Toronto for rezoning and site plan applications.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal addressed opportunities for settlement discussions, finalized a Procedural Order, and scheduled a four-day video hearing.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the Tribunal erred by requiring a condition in its grant of a Public Safety Maintenance Easement that permitted physical encumbrances or encroachments authorized by an approval authority.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding that the proposed appeals did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with standard practice, no reasons were provided.

The parties reached an agreement on costs.

Case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for two motions for leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal.

The court scheduled the motions to proceed by videoconference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of materials, including factums, compendiums, and authorities.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal regarding compensation for properties expropriated by the City of Toronto.

The appellants challenged the Tribunal's valuation of the properties, the start and end dates for interest, and the denial of disturbance damages for lost business opportunities and replacement property costs.

The City cross-appealed the award of 12% interest for delay and disturbance damages for lost commissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's factual findings or legal interpretations, except for a minor variation to the calculation of loan costs agreed upon by the parties.

Six proposed intervenors brought motions for leave to intervene in a stated case before the Divisional Court regarding the interpretation of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017.

The stated case concerns the Tribunal's power to call evidence and permit cross-examination in planning appeals.

The applicants and respondents generally did not oppose the interventions, provided they did not delay the proceedings.

One proposed intervenor, the Toronto Port Authority, also sought to be added as a party to obtain independent appeal rights.

The court granted intervenor status to all six proposed intervenors, finding they had a real interest and could make useful and distinct contributions.

However, the court denied the Toronto Port Authority's request for party status, concluding that granting it would unduly delay the determination of the main parties' rights.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (now LPAT) which adjourned the hearing of appeals regarding Official Plan Amendment 258 (OPA 258) until the City enacted a Development Permit System (DPS) by-law.

The City argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to effectively order the passage of a by-law and denied the City its statutory right to a hearing under the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board did not order the passage of a by-law but reasonably exercised its procedural discretion to adjourn the hearing to ensure it had the necessary evidence to properly assess the planning merits of OPA 258.

The moving party brought a motion seeking leave to appeal an order of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) that adjourned the hearing of an appeal from an Official Plan Amendment.

The OMB had adjourned the hearing until the municipality enacted a development permit by-law, despite acknowledging it could not order the municipality to pass such a by-law.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's order raised a question of law of sufficient general or public importance regarding whether the municipality is entitled under s. 17(44) of the Planning Act to have its appeal adjudicated before enacting a development permit by-law.

The City of Toronto and its Clerk brought an application for declaratory relief regarding the coming into force of by-laws establishing a 47-ward structure for the 2018 municipal election and the resulting composition of city council.

The respondents had previously raised concerns about a potential 'legal vacuum' in their unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, declining to exercise its discretion to grant declaratory relief because there was no live legal dispute between the parties, affected voters had not been given notice, and the application effectively sought an inappropriate advisory opinion.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a 47-ward structure for the City of Toronto's municipal elections.

They argued the Board erred in law by failing to prioritize voter parity and by not requiring a corresponding by-law changing the composition of City Council.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's application of the Carter principles for effective representation.

The court held that the moving parties were improperly challenging findings of fact and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine council composition.

Gemterra Developments Corporation sought a refund of $408,400 from the City of Toronto, alleging overpayment of park levies.

The central issue was the interpretation of "development site" under the City's Park Levy By-law, specifically whether Gemterra's two-phase residential project on a 1.3-hectare parcel constituted one or two development sites.

The levy rate was 10% for sites less than one hectare and 15% for sites between one and five hectares.

Gemterra argued that each phase, for which separate building permits were issued, should be treated as a distinct site, qualifying for the lower 10% rate.

The City contended it was a single development site.

The court dismissed Gemterra's application, finding that "development site" is a fact-based determination, and in this case, the two phases comprised a single development site, irrespective of phased construction or separate building permits.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board finding that it had jurisdiction to determine whether site plan control applied to the respondent's proposed interior alterations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Board's jurisdiction under s. 114(7) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 is limited to resolving disputes about what types of features or design elements should be included in a site plan application, not the threshold question of whether site plan control applies at all.

The standard of review was determined to be reasonableness, and the Board's interpretation was found to be unreasonable as it undermined the overall legislative scheme.

The respondent submitted that the court should decline to hear the appeal based on the doctrine of mootness, as it had applied for a new building permit and appealed its refusal under s. 25 of the Building Code Act.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the matter despite the lack of a live controversy, noting that the issue was important, had broader implications, and would clarify uncertainty in the law.