David Bronskill

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances to permit a 6-storey self-storage warehouse in an Employment zone.

The requested variances included permitting a self-storage warehouse use, increasing the maximum floor space index, and allowing a loading space with vehicle access through a main front wall.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed self-storage warehouse is a hybrid use permitted in a General Employment Area.

The tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, are minor, and are desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

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 60-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 36-storey residential building.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by SLH Lakeshore Inc. concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan control applications.

The applications propose a mixed-use development with two residential towers.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of evidence, witness statements, and other pre-hearing requirements leading up to an 8-day video hearing scheduled to commence on May 26, 2025.

The Applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density residential mixed-use development.

Following a settlement, the Tribunal issued a decision on January 10, 2025.

The Tribunal subsequently issued this amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical or typographical error in the development statistics chart contained in the original decision.

In all other respects, the original decision and order remain unchanged.

Multiple appeals were filed regarding the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 469 and the Sherway Area Secondary Plan.

Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited and the City presented a settlement proposal to resolve Cadillac Fairview's site-specific appeals concerning 25 The West Mall.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and conforms to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

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 permit a high-density residential mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing five high-rise towers and a public park.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to applicable official plans.

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

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-rise development consisting of 30-storey and 39-storey towers.

The City opposed the development, arguing it exceeded the height of the Niagara Escarpment and conflicted with the Downtown Hamilton Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, finding that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement's goals for intensification and land optimization in a transit-oriented area.

The Tribunal concluded that the building heights would not negatively impact views of the Niagara Escarpment and that shadow, wind, and servicing issues could be adequately addressed through the site plan process.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 17-storey mixed-use building at 1930-1938 Bloor Street West and 3, 5 and 21 Quebec Avenue in Toronto.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications to permit a 45-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle on an interim basis, and deferred the site plan appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a 29-storey residential building.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on April 28, 2025, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by ABC Eglinton LP concerning a proposed 19-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal approved the Draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties and granted participant status to an additional individual.

A settlement in principle was noted between the appellant and one of the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference for February 27, 2025, and ordered the parties to submit a final draft Procedural Order, Issues List, and a draft Order relating to the OPA by December 16, 2024.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 94-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 99-storey proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including finalization of the amending instruments and engineering reports.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent for an appeal concerning a proposed 35-storey residential building at 77 Erskine Avenue in Toronto.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on its zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The procedural order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural deadlines leading up to a 10-day hearing scheduled to commence in March 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by landowners against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 633 concerning the Jane Finch Secondary Plan.

The appellants seek higher proposed heights on their lands.

The Tribunal directed the appellants to provide an issues list and confirm if their appeals can proceed on a site-specific basis, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a 17-storey mixed-use building.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing for March 2025 and approved the final draft Procedural Order submitted on consent by the parties.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct typographical errors in a decision issued on October 16, 2024.

The amendments included replacing an attachment, correcting the spelling of 'Brampton', and correcting the word 'sized' to 'seized'.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Heritage Permit Application to permit a 975-unit residential development and the adaptive reuse of a heritage school building.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the proposal to improve building transitions and heritage conservation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms to the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.