David Bronskill

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision for a mixed-use development.

The parties reported ongoing positive discussions and requested a further Case Management Conference to continue settlement efforts.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and directed the parties to provide an update on their progress five days prior.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for provisional consent and minor variances to effect a lot line adjustment and access easement for lands containing a heritage-designated Hindu temple.

The Shree Jagannath Temple Canada, which occupies the temple, opposed the application, arguing it would negatively impact parking and future expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed lot size would provide adequate parking and allow the temple to continue its current operations.

The Tribunal concluded that the consent satisfied the criteria under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1).

This was the first Case Management Conference concerning an appeal against the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for properties on Sulphur Springs Road.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two abutting property owners who raised concerns about drainage, tree preservation, and construction impacts.

The Tribunal also approved a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a five-day video hearing for July 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 61-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the ABC Residents Association/Greater Yorkville Ratepayer’s Association on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day video hearing on the merits for April 2024.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on its Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised development consisting of townhouses and apartment buildings.

The Tribunal approved the settlement in principle, finding that the revised development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed five-tower mixed-use development.

The Tribunal approved the finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a 14-day merit hearing for September 2024, and set dates for a further teleconference update.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for the property at 123 Wynford Drive.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

A nine-day hearing on the merits was scheduled to commence in May 2024.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised eight-storey mixed-use building.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal represented good planning, provided appropriate transition, and was compatible with the surrounding context.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of the planning instruments and related agreements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 43-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to a residents' association and participant status to three other entities.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the City to receive instructions from City Council and for the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit four mixed-use buildings.

The applicant and the City of Toronto had reached a settlement, but negotiations with Metrolinx regarding road network alterations and the operation of the Guildwood GO Station were ongoing.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to allow the parties to finalize a settlement or, alternatively, to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List for a merit hearing.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to allow outdoor storage on the subject property for a temporary period of three years.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the conditions agreed upon in the Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Calloway Real Estate Investment Trust Inc. and SmartCentres REIT against the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law and site plan applications.

The applications propose a redevelopment with five mid-rise buildings and townhouses.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a community group, scheduled a five-day merit hearing, and issued a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential development consisting of 40-storey and 44-storey towers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the Region of York Official Plan, and represents appropriate transit-oriented intensification within a Major Transit Station Area.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the amendments in principle subject to the finalization of the instruments and satisfaction of conditions.

Following a Case Management Conference, the parties submitted a final Procedural Order and Issues List on consent.

The Tribunal issued the Procedural Order to govern the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal also considered a late request for party status from a residents association, but granted participant status instead because the request lacked sufficient content to assess its merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 31-storey residential building.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

An eight-day video hearing on the merits was scheduled to commence on July 15, 2024.

The applicant 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 25-storey residential tower.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow time for scoping issues and potential settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 21 Broadview Avenue Inc. for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications propose a 12-storey mixed-use building and 15 townhouses.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Riverside Community Group on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a Telephone Conference Call to further narrow issues and set a hearing date.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 58-storey residential building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Madison Group and participant status to the Republic Residents' Association.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for January 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Airfield Developments Inc. and Airfield II Developments Inc. for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment due to the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Peel and participant status to two individuals.

The parties agreed to explore mediation, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled via telephone to discuss a draft Procedural Order and potential hearing dates.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application to sever a 4.3-hectare parcel from an existing retirement community for future redevelopment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the consent application, subject to agreed-upon conditions, had regard to provincial interests, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and met the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and provisional consent was granted.