David Bronskill

The Tribunal heard two appeals regarding a proposed 242-unit affordable rental housing development in Scarborough Centre.

The first appeal was by a local resident against the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances for increased density and reduced parking.

The second appeal was by the applicant against the City's failure to approve a Site Plan Application.

The Tribunal dismissed the resident's appeal, finding the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and aligned with provincial policies encouraging compact urban form and affordable housing.

The Tribunal also approved the site plan in principle, noting the applicant and City had reached a consensus on the Notice of Approval Conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building on a small mid-block site on Bloor Street West.

The City and local residents' associations opposed the development, arguing it represented an overdevelopment of a small site, lacked appropriate tower setbacks, and would create negative shadow and sky view impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed canyon form tall building represented an appropriate optimization of the site and a transit-supportive intensification that was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed access arrangements were functional and the building's massing and lack of side yard setbacks did not create unacceptable adverse impacts in the downtown context.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order following pre-hearing conferences regarding an objection to a Notice of Intention to Designate the property at 64 Wellesley Street East in Toronto.

The order sets out the conduct of the hearing, document exchange deadlines, and directions for providing photographs in lieu of a site visit due to the provincial emergency.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a rifle range and stadium on a cross-country ski property.

Immediately prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant requested an adjournment due to a serious family illness.

The other parties consented to the adjournment.

The Hearing Officer granted a peremptory adjournment to allow the appellant to attend, noting that failure to attend would result in the confirmation of the permit.

The appellant appealed the conditional approval of a development permit for a rifle range and stadium.

At a second pre-hearing conference, a neighbouring property owner sought party status due to safety concerns.

The tribunal granted the request on consent and directed the parties to provide a joint proposal for hearing dates.

The appellant appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's decision to conditionally approve a development permit for a rifle range and stadium on a cross-country ski property.

At a pre-hearing conference, a neighbouring property owner requested party status due to concerns about contamination, water supply, and noise.

The hearing officer granted the request on consent and scheduled a second pre-hearing conference.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision ordering him to pay costs personally, despite not being a party to the underlying zoning appeal.

The Board had found him to be the 'real litigant' behind a residents' association.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board erred in principle by failing to articulate and apply the proper legal test for determining whether a non-party is a 'real litigant' using a 'straw man' to shield themselves from costs.

The costs order against the appellant was set aside.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding costs against him personally, despite him not being a party to the underlying zoning appeal.

The Board had found him to be the 'real litigant' or 'straw man' behind a non-profit corporation's appeal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the questions of whether the Board has statutory jurisdiction to award costs against a non-party and whether it erred in principle in doing so on the facts of this case.

Leave was denied on issues of fair notice and SLAPP legislation.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Chair dismissing their Request for Review of a Hearing Officer's decision.

The Hearing Officer had approved an Official Plan amendment allowing residential development on lands, parts of which were designated as a cultural heritage landscape.

The moving party argued the OMB erred by not giving deference to the factual findings of the Conservation Review Board (CRB) regarding the extent of the heritage landscape, raising issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no question of law, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB decision, and that the matter was not of sufficient general importance.

Following the dismissal of two related appeals brought by groups of developers, the successful municipal respondents sought costs.

The City of Mississauga sought partial indemnity costs of $70,379.25, while the Region of Halton and City of Burlington sought full indemnity costs of approximately $176,000.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs should follow the event on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the prior proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board and Divisional Court, and the consolidated hearing, the court awarded $50,000 to Mississauga and $50,000 to Halton and Burlington.

Developers appealed decisions of the Divisional Court regarding the interpretation of 'conflict' under O. Reg. 82/98 between pre-existing subdivision agreements and municipal development charge by-laws.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court correctly applied a standard of correctness to the Ontario Municipal Board's decisions.

The Court affirmed that a conflict exists only if the subdivision agreement, properly interpreted, precludes the infrastructure charges imposed by the development charge by-law.

The appeals and cross-appeal were dismissed.