Bruce Engell

The applicants and the City of Vaughan brought motions for costs against the appellants, Humberplex Developments Inc. and Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc., following the dismissal of their appeals regarding Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48.

The costs motions primarily related to a motion to strike brought by the appellants, which sought to exclude expert planning evidence based on hearsay and innuendo regarding alleged bias and improper influence.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' conduct in bringing the motion to strike was unreasonable and warranted an award of costs.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in costs to the applicants and $20,000 to the City, payable primarily by Humberplex.

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The parties requested an adjournment sine die to allow time to determine if the appeals would be withdrawn or a settlement reached, given the new MZO.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 appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision regarding a site plan approval application.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal heard an unopposed motion to substitute a new corporate entity as the appellant, as it had recently acquired the subject property.

The Tribunal granted the motion under Rule 8.2, finding the new owner's presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the proceeding, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

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 applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant revised the proposal to a 21-storey condominium building and reached a settlement with the City and neighbouring residents' associations.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conforms to the applicable official plans and provincial policies, the Tribunal approved the development subject to the fulfillment of final conditions.

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.

This was a Case Management Conference (CMC) before the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding multiple appeals against the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision.

The Tribunal approved two Procedural Orders on consent to govern the phased hearings for the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan appeals and the Solmar Inc./Eastwood Holdings Corp. appeals.

The Tribunal also granted party status to a neighbouring landowner and scheduled future CMCs to address remaining appeals.

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.

This was a Case Management Conference concerning multiple appeals of the 2010 Vaughan Official Plan.

The Tribunal ordered several site-specific appeals regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments to be heard together with the broader secondary plan appeals.

Additionally, following the withdrawal of an appeal concerning 441 Clark Avenue, the City brought an uncontested motion to approve the official plan policies and mapping for that site.

Relying on the uncontested planning evidence of the City's planner, the Tribunal found the policies satisfied all statutory requirements and granted the motion, approving the official plan as it applies to the site.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 49-storey residential development with retail at-grade on a site containing an existing 30-storey rental apartment building.

The City opposed the development, arguing the height and massing were inappropriate and the unit mix did not meet guidelines.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development promotes efficient use of land, is transit-supportive, accommodates an appropriate mix of uses, and conforms to the Official Plan, Growth Plan, and Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the height and podium design would not have unacceptable adverse impacts and that the unit mix provided functional family-sized units.

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.

The Appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit warehouse distribution and office uses.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the zoning by-law amendment for the Phase 2 lands.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed zoning by-law amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning by-law amendment appeal in part to approve the settlement and dismissed the official plan amendment appeal at the Appellant's request.

The City of Brampton brought a motion on consent seeking modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105 (OPA No. 105) regarding the Highway 427 Industrial Secondary Plan Area.

The City sought to modify the boundaries of the natural heritage system in the Rainbow Creek corridor to align with the Rainbow Creek Master Environmental Servicing Plan Addendum, and to approve OPA No. 105 for specific lands.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and having regard to matters of provincial interest.

The Tribunal granted the motion and scheduled a Case Management Conference for remaining appeals.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan approval application.

At a case management conference, the parties reported optimism regarding settlement discussions and requested more time.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference to receive an update on settlement and to consider a draft procedural order.

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 appellant appealed the City of Waterloo's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, arguing that its performance standards for tower separations, podiums, and maximum heights prevented the achievement of maximum planned densities and conflicted with the City's Official Plan, the Provincial Policy Statement, and the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the City has the statutory authority under section 34 of the Planning Act to regulate building height, bulk, and spacing.

The Tribunal held that provincial policies require optimizing, not maximizing, density and that the zoning regulations appropriately implemented the Official Plan's high priority on good urban design and human-scale development.