D. Bronskill

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to obtain status updates and set hearing dates for the remaining appeals (Phases 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G) of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231.

The Tribunal approved procedural orders for Phases 6D and 6E, scheduled a settlement hearing for Phase 6C, set 10-day merit hearings for Phases 6D and 6E, and scheduled a further case management conference for Phase 6G.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, the applicant brought a motion for a declaration that its counsel, Goodmans LLP, was not in a conflict of interest.

An opposing party had previously been represented by a different lawyer at the same firm in a minor variance matter.

The Tribunal applied the test from MacDonald Estate v. Martin and found that no confidential information had been transmitted to the applicant's current counsel, the prior matter was unrelated, and the firm had promptly established an ethical wall.

The motion was allowed in part, and the applicant was permitted to continue retaining the firm.

The appellant, a self-represented neighbour, filed a Review Request of a TLAB decision that had dismissed his appeal and approved minor variances for a six-unit townhouse development.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the Review Request, finding that the appellant failed to identify any of the required statutory grounds for review under Rule 31.17 and instead improperly attempted to re-litigate the original hearing.

The original decision was confirmed.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and minor variances for properties on Forest Hill Road.

The applications sought to adjust lot lines and construct new three-storey detached dwellings.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontested expert land use planning evidence supporting the applications.

The tribunal found that the proposed consent simply adjusted existing property lines and the variances would allow appropriately sited dwellings that reinforce the neighbourhood's physical character.

The appeals were allowed and the applications approved, subject to engineering conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a multi-tower mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing three towers with 940 residential units, including 20 affordable housing units, and parkland conveyances.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle, subject to the satisfaction of prerequisite conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Fengate LiUNA Gardens Holdings LP against the City of Hamilton's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a proposed redevelopment.

The Tribunal confirmed that notice for the first CMC was sufficient and granted participant status to one additional individual on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List and confirmed the scheduling of a 10-day video hearing.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Hamilton's adoption of a Community Benefits Charge By-law.

The parties advised that they are engaged in ongoing discussions to resolve both the by-law appeal and a related site plan control application.

On consent, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for October 26, 2023, to monitor progress.

The applicant appealed minor variance and site plan applications to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The parties reached an agreement in principle regarding the minor variances and requested a one-day hearing to present opinion evidence.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day video hearing for May 25, 2023, to hear the minor variance appeals and potentially the site plan appeals if a settlement is reached.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for a rear addition to a detached dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant modified the application, reducing the building length variance and abandoning two other variances.

The City supported the modified proposal subject to conditions protecting a combined sewer.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the modified variances, finding they met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments, the Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner and upgraded another individual to party status.

A motion regarding a potential conflict of interest of the applicant's counsel was adjourned to a subsequent Case Management Conference due to the self-represented respondent being snowed in and unable to attend the video hearing.

The appellants appealed the City of Mississauga's adoption of a Community Benefits Charge By-law under section 37(17) of the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal directed the parties to provide their particularized issues to the City to facilitate discussions and scoping of issues.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order, schedule a merits hearing, or address any preliminary motions.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a 79-storey mixed-use development after the City failed to make a decision on zoning and site plan applications.

Several neighbouring property owners and condominium corporations requested party status.

Finding that their presence was necessary to adjudicate the issues effectively and that there was no prejudice to the applicant, the Tribunal granted the requests.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order to govern the upcoming merits hearing.

The presiding Panel Member of the Toronto Local Appeal Body convened a teleconference to address new information discovered during a file review prior to a scheduled hearing.

To maintain the integrity and transparency of the tribunal process, the Member concluded it was necessary to immediately recuse himself from the proceeding.

The Member ordered that the file be reassigned to a different panel member and that the scheduled hearing date be retained if possible.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 573, which enacts Site and Area Specific Policy No. 772 for the Danforth Avenue Study Area.

Six entities requested and were granted non-appellant party status on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to seek instructions regarding Tribunal-led mediation and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider a draft Procedural Order or settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 21-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement, which was supported by the local residents' association.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the zoning by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for zoning by-law amendments to facilitate a 7-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a global settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the draft zoning by-law amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the fulfillment of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a high-rise mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to one adjacent property owner and participant status to several individuals and organizations.

A second CMC was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and clarify the specific properties subject to the appeals.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed residential redevelopment.

The Tribunal addressed notice issues, granted party and participant status to several individuals and community groups on consent, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by PR Bloor Street GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval for a 79-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to three residents' and condominium associations and participant status to two other entities.

A 10-day hearing was scheduled for September 2023, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled for January 2023 to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with 35-storey and 33-storey residential towers.

The parties reached a settlement, which was supported by uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.