David Bronskill

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential building at 11 Pleasant Boulevard.

The parties reached a settlement for an 18-storey, 89-unit transit-oriented development within the St. Clair Protected Major Transit Station Area.

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

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of technical conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to decide on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a high-rise redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted party status to a residents' group and participant status to ten individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue discussions and prepare a draft Procedural Order.

This was the second Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 27-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to the WestQueenWest Community Organization but declined a late request from another condominium corporation.

The Tribunal also approved the Parties' draft Procedural Order and scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits for August and September 2026.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Hamilton's refusal of zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications for a 17-lot residential subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to five individuals without objection from the parties.

The Tribunal also approved the finalized Procedural Order and scheduled a six-day merit hearing to commence by video on June 22, 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Concord Adex Inc. against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 64-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities without objection.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for April 13, 2026, to allow time for discussions and the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a corrective order under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend a previous Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The correction fixed a typographical error in the spelling of counsel's name for Home Depot of Canada Inc. from Noah Jorden to Noah Gordon.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicants appealed the Town of Orangeville's refusal of their applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate a 12-unit residential development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence in April 2026.

The parties were directed to submit a final Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Township of Seguin's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the redevelopment of a cottage and boathouse with increased lot coverage, gross floor area, and dock size.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the proposed maximums.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Township's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended in accordance with the settlement.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for Major Transit Station Areas and the new City Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to 201 County Court Brampton Holdings Inc. on consent.

The parties reported progress in mediation and proposed a written settlement motion once a draft order is finalized.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2026 to address outstanding matters and potential consolidation of the appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Hamilton's refusal to approve zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications for a 17-lot residential subdivision.

The Tribunal confirmed proper notice was given and noted no requests for party or participant status.

The parties agreed that a second Case Management Conference was required to finalize the issues list and draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled the second conference and directed the parties to submit the final draft Procedural Order in advance.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an official plan amendment application to permit four tall buildings.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner, Wolfecorp Queensway Inc., on consent of the parties.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for February 2026 to allow the City time to seek instructions from City Council.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 35-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 42-storey building that includes 37 rental replacement units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the draft zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, subject to the satisfaction of several pre-conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to enact an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 45-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement proposal, which included the partial retention and adaptive reuse of a heritage building on the site.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with provincial policy and conformed to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until certain conditions, including a heritage easement agreement and functional servicing report, were satisfied.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a 45-storey residential tower.

The Tribunal granted party status to two adjacent property owners and participant status to several local residents.

A 10-day hearing was scheduled for April 2026, and a procedural order was issued to govern the proceedings.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 63-2024 for the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan area.

Several appeals were withdrawn, and the remaining appellants agreed to scope their appeals to be site-specific and adjourn them sine die.

The Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawals, adjourned the remaining site-specific appeals sine die, released the scheduled 10-day hearing dates, and directed the parties to provide a status update within one year.

Several property owners brought motions seeking party status and orders pursuant to subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act to deem Zoning By-law No. 608-2024 in force for their respective properties.

The by-law, along with Official Plan Amendment No. 727, was adopted by the City of Toronto to permit gentle residential intensification along major streets but was appealed city-wide by 2856973 Ontario Inc. Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that scoping the appeals to exclude the moving parties' lands would not create conformity issues and would facilitate timely redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted the motions, deemed the by-law in force for the specified properties, and permitted the moving parties to withdraw from the proceedings.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 26-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on all issues except the required number of ground-floor retail units, which was later resolved through revised amendments requiring four at-grade retail units and a holding provision to ensure the design reinforces the local main street character.

An adjacent property owner opposed the settlement, raising concerns about shadow, privacy, and transition.

The Tribunal found that the revised amendments provide appropriate transition in scale, mitigate impacts on adjacent neighbourhoods, conform with the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised amendments in principle.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the upcoming hearing for appeals by the applicant regarding the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The amendments seek to permit two mixed-use residential development towers at 321-355 Symington Avenue and 350 Campbell Avenue.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on October 27, 2025.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission proposed an amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan to allow for the development of on-farm diversified uses and agricultural-related uses outside of prime agricultural areas, among other changes.

Hearing Officers were appointed to receive representations on the proposed amendment.

The Hearing Officers recommended the adoption of the proposed amendments, finding that they meet the purpose and objectives of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act and the Plan, are consistent with Provincial policies, and are justified.

The amendments include allowing agricultural uses in Earth Science ANSIs, permitting expansions to existing agricultural buildings in key natural heritage features, allowing maple sugar harvesting in the Escarpment Natural Area, and permitting agriculture-related and on-farm diversified uses outside of prime agricultural areas in the Escarpment Protection Area.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss appeals of Official Plan Amendments 142, 143, and 144, which related to Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs).

The City argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act because the appealed policies identified authorized land uses within a PMTSA.

The responding party, White Elm, argued that changing a land use designation from 'Mixed Use' to 'Mixed Use Limited' did not identify an authorized use.

Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the Tribunal agreed with the City, finding that amending a land use designation inherently identifies and limits permitted uses.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed White Elm's appeal, ruling the policy unappealable.