David Chung Kiu Tang

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 Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Aurora Official Plan, 2024.

The Tribunal granted party status to Allaura Limited Partnership, 16 20 22 Allaura Blvd Inc., and Macont Developments Inc. on consent.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation, and the Appellants agreed to provide a draft issues list to the Town to facilitate instructions from Town Council.

A second Case Management Conference was not scheduled pending the outcome of mediation efforts.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 16 appeals against the newly adopted 2023 City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to five requesting entities, including conservation authorities and railway companies, finding they had a direct interest.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals with a related Major Transit Station Area case to a subsequent joint CMC, and established a schedule for the appellants to provide modification letters to the City.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments to permit a mixed-use development at 1366 Yonge Street.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 49-storey building.

Participants objected to the loss of existing medical office uses.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which includes live-work units and a right of first return for a medical lab, represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and conforms to the Official Plan.

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

The City of Brampton adopted the Heritage Heights Secondary Plan, which was subsequently appealed by multiple landowners and developers.

Following extensive mediation, the parties reached a settlement resulting in a Revised Heritage Heights Secondary Plan that accommodates provincial transportation and transmission corridors while increasing projected population and jobs.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised plan consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the modified plan save for two deferred areas that remain subject to ongoing discussions.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Region of Peel's approval of Official Plan Amendments 142, 143, and 144 to the City of Mississauga's Official Plan, which relate to Major Transit Station Areas.

The Tribunal granted Observing Party status to the Region of Peel, Non-Appellant Party status to Hensall Holdings and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and Participant status to Trillium Health Partners.

A motion by the City to confirm the scope of the appeals and bring unappealed portions of the OPAs into effect was adjourned to allow the parties time to review a revised draft order and compendium.

The applicant appealed the failure of the County of Brant to make decisions regarding applications to rezone and approve a plan of subdivision for a 390-unit residential development.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and requested the scheduling of a five-day merit hearing and a fourth Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal scheduled the merit hearing for February 2025 and the next Case Management Conference for November 2024, and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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 applicants appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that an agreement had been reached regarding access to a neighbouring property for technical work, resolving the need for previously scheduled motions.

The Tribunal released the motion dates, confirmed the withdrawal of a party, and ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending a status update or Notice of Readiness.

The parties requested on consent to adjourn the hearing scheduled for May 2024 regarding the proposed redevelopment of 7887 Weston Road.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment to allow the parties to engage in Tribunal-led mediation and rescheduled the 20-day merit hearing to commence in January 2025.

A revised Procedural Order was issued to govern the rescheduled hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a transit-oriented development at 88 Steeles Avenue West.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, which permits two high-rise residential towers, represents good planning and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of specified conditions.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals against the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The parties required more time to negotiate the applicant's access to a neighbouring business's premises and data for technical work.

The Tribunal released previously scheduled motion dates and ordered that any necessary motions regarding access proceed in writing, setting a schedule for the submission of materials and scheduling a brief update appearance.

The parties requested a Telephone Conference Call to address the scheduling of a 15-day hearing regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The applicant required additional time to complete technical work, which necessitated access to a neighbouring property owned by Mother Parkers Tea and Coffee Inc. The Tribunal released the previously scheduled hearing dates, save for two days reserved for potential motions, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to determine next steps and address any outstanding issues regarding access to the neighbouring property.

The appellant brought a motion claiming that its first demolition permit application remained valid because the municipality failed to make a decision within the statutory timelines under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the municipality had the authority to change its by-law to refuse the demolition permit.

The Tribunal also issued a procedural order and issues list for the upcoming merits hearing regarding the denial of the second demolition permit application.

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order that its demolition permit application was deemed consented to under the Ontario Heritage Act because the Municipality failed to provide notice of its decision within the statutory 90-day period.

The Tribunal agreed that deemed consent occurred due to the lack of timely notice.

However, the Tribunal found that the Municipality possessed the authority under the Municipal Act to revoke the by-law associated with the demolition permit, effectively revoking the permit.

The motion was therefore dismissed.