David Neligan

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 Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in the Titles of Proceeding of a previous decision issued on June 25, 2021.

The correction was made pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference concerning appeals of the City of Hamilton's Official Plan Amendment No. 69 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 17-240.

The parties agreed to split the appeals into City-wide appeals and site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal approved the scoping of the appeals, scheduled a five-week hearing for the City-wide appeals, and issued the associated Procedural Order.

The Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to rescind a previously issued procedural order and reschedule a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a mixed-use redevelopment.

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.

The applicant municipality sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision approving a zoning by-law passed by a neighbouring municipality to permit a major tourist destination, including a casino.

The applicant raised eight questions of law, arguing the OMB misinterpreted the Planning Act, regulations, and official plans regarding municipal council decisions, complete applications, holding provisions, and public works.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OMB's interpretations were reasonable and within its specialized planning expertise.

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.

The appellants appealed an order recognizing the respondents' common user rights over narrow parcels of land fronting Lake Simcoe, known as the 'Slivers'.

The application judge found that the respondents, as owners of lots in the subdivision, had openly and continuously used the Slivers since 1950, satisfying the requirements under the Registry Act and Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's assessment of the uncontradicted affidavit evidence and declining to restrict the user rights to bathing purposes.