David Angelakis

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of its property by Metrolinx for the Ontario Line transit project.

The Tribunal determined the highest and best use of the property was a high-density two-tower mixed-use development.

The Tribunal screened out the impact of the Ontario Line announcement under section 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act.

It rejected Metrolinx's argument for a lease encumbrance deduction due to the common control of the tenant and claimant.

The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's appraiser's market value of $187 per square foot, resulting in a gross value of $88,825,000, and applied a $1,000,000 deduction for environmental remediation costs, awarding a net amount of $87,825,000.

The applicant appealed the County's failure to make a decision on its application for a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a 432-unit residential community.

The issues centered on the adequacy of proposed external servicing improvements, the safety and efficiency of the proposed road network (specifically an S-curve), and the proposed parkland dedication.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's proposed servicing improvements were adequate and did not require a complete replacement of external infrastructure.

The Tribunal also preferred the applicant's transportation evidence, finding the road network safe and efficient.

Finally, the Tribunal held that the parkland dedication had already been settled in a previous agreement.

The appeal was allowed, with final approval withheld pending draft conditions.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment adopted by the municipality that permitted a religious educational centre, place of worship, and retreat-based uses on its property, arguing the holding provisions were overly broad.

The Tribunal evaluated the appropriateness of holding provisions related to road improvements, site servicing, and the use of existing structures.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, modifying the zoning by-law to require a transportation impact study and agreement for road improvements, preferring the appellant's less restrictive servicing requirements, approving a larger maximum floor area for the religious education centre, and clarifying the scope of non-permitted uses.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to reduce the required parking spaces for a new industrial warehouse building from 350 to 219 spaces.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, accepting uncontradicted expert planning and traffic engineering evidence that the reduced parking supply was adequate due to technological advances and automation in warehouse operations.

The variance was found to meet the four tests under the Planning Act and was approved subject to standard tree protection conditions.