Bruce Hall

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and a demolition permit to allow a 5-storey mixed-use development in the Port Dalhousie Heritage Conservation District.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development represents appropriate intensification, is consistent with provincial and municipal policies, and respects the heritage character of the area.

The appeals were allowed in part and the instruments approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of a minor variance application and failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a hotel development.

The minor variance application sought to increase the height of a proposed building from 15 to 19 storeys, along with related technical variances.

An adjacent resident was granted party status and opposed the variances, citing concerns over height, scale, and shadow impacts.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert evidence of the applicant that the variances were minor, represented good urban design, and met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the minor variance appeal in part, authorizing the variances subject to conditions, and adjourned the site plan control appeal sine die.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 32-storey building with 409 residential units.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments.

The City of Richmond Hill brought a motion for directions regarding the application of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act to appeals of its Official Plan Amendment 41 (OPA 41).

The Tribunal found that the angular plane requirements in Policy 10.3.4 function to set maximum heights and are therefore unappealable.

The Tribunal also found that the maximum density policies in Policy 10.3.6 identify maximum densities within a Protected Major Transit Station Area and are unappealable, with the exception of subsection 5.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to prepare an Issues List reflecting these findings and confirmed that certain unappealed policies of OPA 41 are in full force and effect.

The Applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a Site Plan Application for a five-storey retirement residence.

The parties reached a settlement resolving outstanding issues, including alterations to the building's massing, scale, and streetscape animation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised site plan satisfies section 41 of the Planning Act and is consistent with provincial policies.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the site plan was approved subject to agreed conditions.

The applicants appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments and site plan approval for a proposed five-storey retirement home with commercial space.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the official plan and zoning by-law amendments, while holding the site plan approval in abeyance.

The applicant appealed the Town of Whitby's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 6-storey, 113-unit residential apartment building.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed development represented an unprecedented over-intensification of residential uses in the Downtown Area.

The Tribunal also held that the applications were premature, as they would usurp the ongoing Downtown Whitby Secondary Plan Update and undermine the public consultation process.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 7-storey hotel.

The parties reached a settlement that addressed the Town's concerns regarding site access by protecting a potential full movement access driveway through an adjacent property.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with regional and local official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

Appeal from a Divisional Court order quashing a municipal restructuring commission’s final proposal amalgamating several municipalities and annexing unorganized territory.

The Court of Appeal held that judicial review of a restructuring commission performing a political and legislative function is narrowly confined to whether the commission acted according to law, and does not permit the court to revisit the merits of restructuring policy.

The Divisional Court erred in finding illegality, inadequate consultation with First Nations as a free-standing jurisdictional defect, failure to apply the former OMB 'three filters' test, an impermissible 'tax grab', and bias.

The cross-appeal seeking a declaration under s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 was dismissed without prejudice because the record was inadequate for determination of the constitutional issue.