Christopher Tanzola

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on their applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval for a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to Redpath Sugar Ltd., the Toronto Port Authority, and Pier 27 Toronto (Northwest) Inc., and participant status to three individuals.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing, and directed the parties to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate a 45-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement which refined the built form and addressed shadow and traffic concerns.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and optimizes density within a Major Transit Station Area.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of technical servicing and engineering conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building in the Village of Yorkville.

The Tribunal found that the subject property is located within a designated low-rise area under Site and Area Specific Policy 211.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the policy boundary should be moved to accommodate the tall building, finding that the proposed development did not respect or reinforce the existing low-scale character of the neighbourhood.

The appeals were dismissed as the applications did not conform to the City's Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 3,034-unit mixed-use development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement, resolving all issues including concerns from an adjacent property owner regarding stormwater overflows.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending satisfaction of specified conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for a high-density residential development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal featuring reduced building heights and density.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the Zoning By-law Amendment approved in principle on an interim basis pending finalization of the instrument and satisfaction of pre-requisite conditions.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.5.

The appellants confirmed their appeals were scoped on a site-specific basis to 9218 Yonge Street and 9251 Yonge Street.

The Tribunal ordered that OPA 18.5 is in force and effect on a plan-wide basis, save and except for the two site-specific addresses, pursuant to subsection 17(39) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also approved a Draft Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming merit hearing.

The City of Pickering brought a motion requesting partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 38 (OPA 38), which facilitates redevelopment and intensification along the Kingston Road Corridor.

Several site-specific appeals had been filed against OPA 38.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the unappealed portions of OPA 38 are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conform to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion and approved OPA 38 in part, noting that this partial approval would not prejudice the remaining site-specific appeals.

The appellant appealed the City of Oshawa's By-law 27-2024, which designated a property as a heritage property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties requested an adjournment sine die to allow the City to seek instructions from City Council regarding Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die, noting that the parties will contact the Case Coordinator to initiate mediation and set the next hearing date when necessary.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

At the second case management conference, the parties requested to convert the scheduled merit hearing into a case management conference because revised plans submitted by the applicant did not result in a settlement.

The Tribunal adjourned the merit hearing, directed the filing of a new procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a new nine-day merit hearing for July 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development at 2500 Don Mills Road.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal featuring two towers of 49 and 44 storeys, 1,196 residential units, and a new public park.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the instruments in principle, withholding its final order until the City confirms several conditions are satisfied.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a 36-storey mixed-use building.

Following a previous decision, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to a 13-day hearing scheduled to commence on May 21, 2025.

The Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

The parties submitted a draft Procedural Order and requested a hearing.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence in September 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 9218 Yonge Street Inc., Taheri Development Inc., and Yonge Sixteen Inc. against the City of Richmond Hill's approval of Official Plan Amendment 18.5.

The parties requested a second CMC in six to eight weeks to allow for without prejudice discussions aimed at resolving the appeals, noting that site-specific appeals for the appellants' properties had already been adjudicated.

The Tribunal agreed and scheduled a second CMC for November 29, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the municipality's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed mixed-use development.

The parties reported ongoing technical discussions and requested a further CMC following a scheduled municipal council meeting.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth CMC for October 17, 2024, and directed the parties to provide an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference, the City of Toronto requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing regarding an official plan and zoning by-law amendment for 2500 Don Mills Road.

The City argued that the Applicant's late submission of revised plans prejudiced its ability to prepare.

The Applicant subsequently withdrew the revised plans and reverted to the original plans.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no procedural fairness issue given the withdrawal, but released the first week of the hearing and adjusted the procedural order dates.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's adoption of a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant advised that it would be applying for a minor variance to allow office permissions on the subject property, which could resolve the appeal.

The parties jointly requested that the appeal be adjourned sine die to allow the minor variance process to unfold.

The Tribunal agreed with the proposed path forward and ordered the matter adjourned sine die, directing the parties to provide a written status update by December 2, 2024.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed 42-storey mixed-use building, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Catholic District School Board and The Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada on consent.

The Tribunal also adjourned the site plan appeal pending the determination of the zoning by-law amendment appeal and scheduled a four-day merit hearing.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion at a Case Management Conference seeking to resolve several site-specific appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved site-specific amendments for properties owned by Dufferin Vistas Ltd., Condor Properties Ltd., and Armland Management Inc. The Tribunal also provided directions for other appeals to be considered at future Case Management Conferences and acknowledged the withdrawal of certain appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Westchester Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications for 33 Walsh Avenue.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority on consent.

A request for party status by a local resident was denied, with the Tribunal noting his concerns were covered by the City's issues list and he would remain a participant.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 13-day merit hearing for February 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for two residential towers connected by a podium.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan Amendment and approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the zoning by-law.