David Neligan

In an expropriation proceeding, both the claimant and the respondent municipality brought motions regarding questions refused during examinations for discovery.

The Tribunal ordered the City's representative to answer questions about the purchase price of adjacent lands, finding it relevant to the claimant's theory of highest and best use.

The Tribunal also ordered the claimant's representative to provide an itemized list of rental losses and to produce valuation reports referenced in its pleadings, provided that the claimant was not required to produce new analyses or expert work product protected by litigation privilege.

Multiple appellants appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 478 (OPA 478), which provides area-wide policies for lands near the Main Street TTC Station and Danforth GO Station.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered proposed modifications to OPA 478 that clarify the provision of new streets, parks, built form standards, and municipal services.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the modified OPA 478 is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the modified OPA 478.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's Zoning By-law No. 17-240 and Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. 69.

The City and the remaining city-wide appellants, Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited and Choice Properties Real Estate Investment Trust, reached a settlement involving modifications to the commercial and mixed-use zone regulations.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the settlement and deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law in force.

The City of Timmins appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit a seasonal trailer as a secondary dwelling on a waterfront property.

The property is located on a lake identified by the Ministry of the Environment as being at capacity for development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and refused the variance, finding that it did not meet the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal relied on expert planning evidence that the variance would result in inappropriate intensification contrary to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, which require a rezoning application and supporting environmental studies for additional dwellings in the waterfront zone.

The City of Timmins appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting a minor variance to permit a seasonal trailer as a secondary dwelling on a waterfront property.

The property is located on a lake identified by the Ministry of the Environment as being at capacity for development.

The Tribunal applied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and found that the variance did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, which seek to protect lake capacity by limiting development.

The Tribunal concluded the variance was neither desirable for the appropriate development of the land nor minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance was not authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a high-density mixed-use development at 6 Dawes Road.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of two buildings with four residential towers.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed settlement is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of various conditions by the City.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached in principle.

With the consent of all parties, the Tribunal scheduled a settlement hearing for December 17, 2021, and removed a self-represented party's issues from the list following his withdrawal.

The claimant sought compensation from the City of Toronto under the Expropriations Act for the expropriation of its lands.

The parties requested an adjournment of the previously scheduled hearing and agreed to new dates for the exchange of documents and a new hearing schedule.

The Ontario Land Tribunal approved the new procedural order, setting the hearing to commence on October 11, 2022, and established a discovery plan.

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

The application proposed two mixed-use buildings with four towers at 6 Dawes Road.

Following a second Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order, scheduled a 10-day hearing for June 2022, and set a third Case Management Conference for November 2021.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 453, which introduces policies and definitions for dwelling rooms to protect affordable housing.

The City and the University of Toronto reached a settlement, and other appellants scoped their appeals to be site-specific.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved OPA 453, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan, while withholding the order for specific properties subject to ongoing site-specific appeals.

Whitewall Property Corporation was also granted non-appellant party status.

The City of Toronto adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 453 (OPA 453) to introduce policies regarding dwelling rooms, affordable housing, and tenant relocation.

Several parties appealed the amendment.

Prior to the hearing, the City and the University of Toronto reached a settlement, and the remaining appellants scoped their appeals to be site-specific.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended OPA 453 is consistent with provincial policies and maintains the intent of the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved OPA 453, except for two site-specific appeals which remain ongoing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 478.

The parties reported that settlement discussions were ongoing in good faith and requested a subsequent Case Management Conference to review the results.

The Tribunal scheduled the next Case Management Conference for January 31, 2022, and a 30-day Hearing of the Merits commencing April 4, 2022.

The applicants appealed the Town of Innisfil's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit an in-water boathouse on their property.

Prior to the hearing, the applicants and the Town reached a settlement on a modified proposal, which was opposed by neighbouring property owners.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' land use planning and coastal engineering experts, finding that the modified proposal conformed with the Town's Official Plan, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and provincial policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, amending the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The objectors opposed the City of Niagara Falls' Notice of Intention to Repeal a designating by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Following a ruling on a jurisdictional motion, a pre-hearing conference was held where the parties agreed to resume the hearing in writing.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order setting out the schedule for written submissions.

The City of Niagara Falls issued a Notice of Intention to Repeal the heritage designation of a municipally-owned property.

Objectors referred the matter to the Conservation Review Board.

During the hearing, the City brought a motion seeking to introduce non-heritage evidence (e.g., logistical concerns, restoration costs) to justify the repeal.

The Review Board dismissed the motion, holding that its jurisdiction in both designation and repeal matters is strictly limited to an independent evaluation of the property's cultural heritage value or interest under O. Reg. 9/06, and it does not review the broader policy decisions of the municipality.

The objectors opposed the City of Niagara Falls' Notice of Intention to Repeal Designating By-law No. 2010-90 for a property.

At the hearing, the City raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the type of evidence the Conservation Review Board may hear.

The Board adjourned the hearing and issued a procedural order directing that the jurisdictional issue be considered by way of a motion in writing, setting out the schedule for the parties to serve and file their written materials.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal decision released on May 8, 2017.

The appellants were successful on appeal and the cross-appeal was dismissed.

The appellants sought partial indemnity costs in the amount of $38,105.67, including disbursements and HST.

The respondent did not dispute the quantum but argued that no costs should be awarded or alternatively that costs should be left to the application judge or awarded in the cause.

The court awarded costs to the appellants in the full amount requested, applying the ordinary practice that the successful party on appeal receives reasonable, fair and proportionate partial indemnity costs.

The appellants appealed an application judge's order declaring an Order to Remedy Unsafe Building null, void, and inoperative.

The respondent cross-appealed seeking an interim injunction to prevent demolition and a declaration that the building was not unsafe.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge made two errors: first, in finding that service of the Order to Remedy was defective when it was properly served on the owner by registered mail in compliance with the Building Code Act; and second, in finding that the Order to Remedy lacked the required specificity.

The Court held that the Order to Remedy contained sufficient particularity to enable the respondent to understand the case it had to meet and the deficiencies requiring remediation.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal dismissed, and the issues of interim injunction and whether the building was unsafe were remitted to another application judge.

The moving party brought a motion for the production of confidential information held by the respondent regarding 24 pharmaceutical companies and five non-pharmaceutical companies, to assist in valuing its purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

The respondent and third-party property owners consented to the release of information for the pharmaceutical properties but objected to the non-pharmaceutical properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-pharmaceutical properties lacked sufficient similarity to the subject property and denied disclosure for those five properties.

The Board ordered the disclosure of information for the 24 pharmaceutical properties, subject to strict confidentiality undertakings.