Eileen Costello

The applicant sought approval of revised draft plan of subdivision and draft plan conditions, and the issuance of the Phase 2 Order for a residential development in the Town of Milton.

The Tribunal had previously withheld the Phase 2 Order pending the satisfaction of certain conditions, including the registration of private agreements and a restriction on pre-sales until servicing allocation was secured.

Based on uncontested affidavit evidence from a land use planner confirming that these conditions had been met and that all parties consented to the revisions, the Tribunal approved the revised draft plan and conditions, issued the Phase 2 Order, and extended the lapsing date by three years.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 43-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, the City's Official Plan, and applicable secondary plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until certain conditions are met.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by multiple developers against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 571, which adds the Mount Dennis Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Learning Enrichment Foundation.

The parties agreed that the matter would benefit from Tribunal-led mediation, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2023.

A case management conference was held to address a scheduling issue raised by the South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association.

The Association requested an adjournment of the scheduled July 2023 hearing because its representative, who is not retained counsel, was personally unavailable.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the personal scheduling conflicts of an agent do not warrant adjourning fixed hearing dates, especially when the other parties are ready to proceed.

The Tribunal issued a revised Procedural Order and confirmed the hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Guelph's Official Plan Amendment No. 79, which introduced the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to Timberworx Custom Homes Inc. and provisional party status to Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues Lists, and an eight-week merit hearing was scheduled to commence in January 2024.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by 120 Metcalfe JV against the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for an 8-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to 2601622 Ontario Inc. on consent, noting its similar appeal for a nearby property.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day video hearing to commence on January 15, 2024.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 183 and the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for July 2023 to allow the City to finalize a revised HCD plan and for parties to scope issues.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a merits hearing, finding it premature.

A request by a new property owner to assume a withdrawn appeal was deferred, with a scheduled motion date vacated on consent of the parties.

The Kingston Home Builders Association appealed the City of Kingston's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2022-62, specifically challenging minimum density provisions and maximum bedroom limits.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to reduce minimum densities in certain exception zones to better align with the prevailing neighbourhood character and secondary plan permissions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, allowed the appeal, and amended the zoning by-law accordingly.

The City of Kingston and the Kingston Home Builders Association brought motions to confirm that Official Plan Amendment No. 82 and Zoning By-law No. 2022-62 came into effect on their respective statutory dates, save for specific provisions and properties subject to site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested planning evidence and ordered that the instruments are in full force and effect, with the specified exceptions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to allow a 6-storey addition to an existing 5-storey office building.

At the first Case Management Conference, an adjacent property owner requested party status due to concerns about snow and water runoff and development potential impacts.

The Tribunal deferred the party status request to allow the parties to engage in mediation and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 2023.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 16-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals on consent.

As the City required time to seek instructions from City Council, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for February 2023 to review a draft procedural order and explore mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an order amending the Procedural Order for an appeal concerning a proposed three-building, 1210-unit mixed-use development at 1325-1365 The Queensway in Toronto.

The amended Procedural Order governs the required procedures leading up to and including the 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on April 10, 2023, by videoconference.

The City of Toronto adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 486 (King Spadina Secondary Plan), which was appealed by multiple parties.

At this Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was updated on the status of a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for October 2022 and a twelve-day merit hearing for August 2023.

The applicant sought to revise an existing approval in principle for a zoning by-law amendment to incorporate an adjacent corner parcel into a comprehensive redevelopment site for a 10-storey mixed-use residential building.

The City endorsed the minor adjustments to the draft zoning by-law instruments.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the revised zoning by-law amendments to By-law Nos. 7625 and 569-2013, allowing the appeal in part.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a mixed-use residential building.

The Tribunal had previously granted approval in principle for the redevelopment.

The applicant subsequently acquired an adjacent corner parcel and sought to revise the approval to incorporate it.

With the City's endorsement and uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the revised zoning by-law amendments to permit the comprehensive redevelopment.

The Applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframe.

Following a settlement hearing where the Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, the parties requested a status update hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to submit the final draft Zoning By-law Amendments and confirm all pre-requisites are satisfied by August 5, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and refusal of a heritage permit, for a proposed 10-storey student residence.

Participant status was granted to a neighbouring residence concerned about shadowing impacts.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day contested hearing to commence on September 18, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant following the City's failure to render a decision on zoning by-law and official plan amendment applications for a 21-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted interim party status to a local resident pending the incorporation of an area residents' group.

Two individuals were granted participant status, while the remaining participant status requests were deferred to the next Case Management Conference.

A second Case Management Conference and a 13-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 10-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted Participant status to seven individuals on consent and established a process for late Participant requests.

A nine-day video hearing was scheduled for March 2023, and the Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the proceedings.

The moving party, a heritage foundation, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that granted zoning and Official Plan amendments to allow the construction of two high-rise buildings in downtown Kingston.

The moving party argued the Tribunal erred in law by failing to interpret the Official Plan as a whole and incorrectly interpreting specific compatibility criteria.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Tribunal's balancing of the Official Plan's competing objectives of heritage preservation and urban intensification was a question of mixed fact and law, not an extricable error of law.