Bruce Engell

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize floor area ratio variances for three proposed two-storey detached dwellings on irregular, smaller lots in the St. Luke's Precinct.

The Tribunal conducted a hearing de novo for all requested variances, including setbacks and lot coverage.

The Tribunal found that the proposed developments disregarded the newly introduced floor area ratio standard intended to prevent overbuilding.

The Tribunal concluded that the variances would result in overdevelopment, lacked appropriate spatial separation, and were incompatible with the neighbourhood character.

The appeals were dismissed and the variances were not authorized.

The appellant appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment by the municipality.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the municipality reached a settlement regarding proposed policy modifications.

A non-appellant party opposed the settlement but was found to have no independent status to continue the appeal under the Tribunal's Rules.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence and concluded that the proposed policy modifications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and County Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the modifications.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the 2010 Vaughan Official Plan and related site-specific development applications.

The Tribunal granted revisions to the Procedural Order for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan hearing, deferring its start by one week to allow experts to review recently circulated transportation studies and development plans.

The Tribunal also granted Party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on Appeal 166.

Finally, the Tribunal allowed a settlement motion by the City of Vaughan, approving modifications to the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Secondary Plan for a specific site, finding the modifications represented good planning and satisfied statutory requirements.

The appellants appealed the Town of Ajax's approval of a zoning by-law amendment.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, a Ministerial Zoning Order was issued for the subject lands.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die to allow time to determine if the appeals would be withdrawn or a settlement reached, given the new MZO.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent.

The County of Simcoe adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (OPA 5) to clarify solid waste management policies.

The appellants appealed the adoption.

The County and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing challenged the appellants' statutory standing, arguing they did not make the required oral or written submissions prior to adoption.

The Tribunal directed the County to bring a written motion to determine the threshold issue of standing and set a schedule for filings.

The appellants appealed the County's Official Plan Amendment 2 (OPA 2) and the Township's failure to make a decision on related official plan and zoning by-law amendments, which would permit an Environmental Resource Recovery Centre (ERRC) in a significant woodland.

The appellants argued the facility would have negative impacts on the natural heritage system and did not qualify for exemptions under the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal found that the proposed facility would not cause negative impacts to the significant woodlands or wildlife habitat, and that the required off-site afforestation and reforestation provided appropriate compensation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals against OPA 2 and approved the related amendments in part, finding them consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

At a Case Management Conference, the Castlefields Residents Association Corporation sought party status in an appeal regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The applicant objected, arguing the Association had not met previous Tribunal directions to retain counsel.

The Tribunal found the Association had a clear interest in the matter, was acting in good faith, and would cooperate in finalizing the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal granted the Association party status and issued the Procedural Order for the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the upcoming 10-day video hearing regarding appeals of the Town of Ajax's Zoning By-law No. Z2/19.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, the Tribunal considered a request for an adjournment.

The representative for a newly incorporated community group seeking party status had unexpectedly resigned just prior to the hearing.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the community group time to retain new representation and finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a requested Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the expansion of a retirement centre.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted the parties' progress in refining the issues list and issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming five-day hearing.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment under section 17(36) of the Planning Act.

The appellant opposed a policy requiring a master plan and urban design brief prior to any zoning by-law amendment.

During the conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring landowner whose lands were directly impacted by the disputed policy.

The parties advised the Tribunal that a tentative settlement had been reached, and the Tribunal scheduled a one-day settlement hearing.

Nicholyn Farms Inc. brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of appeals regarding County of Simcoe Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (COPA 2) and to consolidate it with the hearing for appeals of County Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (COPA 5).

The County of Simcoe and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing opposed the motion, arguing that COPA 5 was not properly appealed and that an adjournment would cause significant prejudice and delay to the County's waste management objectives.

The Tribunal found that an adjournment would prejudice the County and the Ministry, and that the moving party failed to justify the delay.

The motion was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment regulating short-term rental accommodations.

The Tribunal addressed the settlement of a motion for the production of documents, finalized the Issues List and draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a seven-day hearing for March 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for the hearing of appeals concerning the Township of Springwater's proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2 and Zoning By-law Amendment, which would permit a waste management facility in the Freele County Forest.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, which will be conducted by videoconference in two parts, and establishes the requirements for the parties before the hearing, including the exchange of witness lists, expert witness meetings, and the filing of participant statements.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment passed by the Town of Ajax, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Durham and the new owners of the subject lands.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a finalized Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

The Tribunal granted party status to three non-appellant entities, subject to their sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal noted that the parties have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation and found it premature to require the preparation of an Issues List until mediation is completed.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2021.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

Three non-appellant entities were granted party status on consent, subject to the requirement that they shelter under issues raised by existing appellants.

The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed to enter Tribunal-led mediation to scope issues and find common ground.

The Tribunal found it premature to require the parties to finalize an Issues List before the conclusion of mediation, but ordered the City to submit a draft Issues List prior to the next CMC.

A second CMC was scheduled for October 2021.

The applicant appealed the Town of Ajax's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, a community group requested party status but was denied because it was not yet formally incorporated, though they were permitted to reapply at the next CMC.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC and directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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.