David McKay

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 40-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with the Official Plan, representing good planning and appropriate intensification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, withholding the final order until several pre-requisite conditions, including revised servicing and wind studies, are satisfied.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a children's outdoor play area in the front and side yards and to reduce the required parking to zero for an existing day nursery.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence that the parking reduction would improve safety and pick-up/drop-off operations, and that the play area locations were appropriate and partially recognized by an existing encroachment agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed 49-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 62-storey development that includes heritage conservation, increased setbacks, and affordable housing contributions.

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

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several preconditions.

The applicants appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan control applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

Following a settlement, the Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeals based on uncontested land use planning evidence.

The Tribunal found the development, which includes mid-rise buildings and townhouses, represents good planning, provides needed housing, and conforms with applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The zoning by-law amendment and site plan were approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development with 35-storey and 55-storey towers.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal had regard for matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 50-storey residential building.

The parties reached a full, uncontested settlement.

Based on uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development provides appropriate transit-supportive density, conforms to provincial and municipal policies, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the amendments and the securing of a Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a high-rise residential building.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a 44-storey building with 553 units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with applicable plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement, with final approval of the instruments withheld pending finalization.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal, which was endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the revised zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, contingent on the satisfaction of several pre-requisite conditions including infrastructure and servicing requirements.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan control application for a 44-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal, which was endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the official plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the draft zoning by-law amendment in principle, subject to the satisfaction of several pre-requisite conditions including engineering and servicing reports.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application for a proposed 23-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the building height to 16 storeys and making other design modifications.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle while withholding the final order pending the fulfillment of engineering and servicing conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised proposal.

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 on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a transit-oriented development at 88 Steeles Avenue West.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, which permits two high-rise residential towers, represents good planning and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of specified conditions.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision to permit a 24-storey mixed-use building and a 9-storey apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the Zoning By-law Amendment, and the applicant withdrew the Official Plan Amendment appeal.

Based on the uncontradicted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding the final Order until various conditions, including finalization of plans and reports, are met.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that facilitated a high-rise residential development.

The appellants, who owned adjacent properties, primarily objected to the proposed alignment of a new stratified north-south public local road, arguing it would inequitably restrict their own future development potential.

The Tribunal found that the approved road alignment, which was the City's preferred option following a transportation master plan update, represented good planning and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal also noted that the approved development included a significant community benefits package that could be jeopardized by altering the road alignment.

The appeals were dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mixed-use building, as well as an appeal under the Ontario Heritage Act regarding the demolition of a heritage building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for an 18-storey mixed-use development that integrates portions of the existing heritage building.

Based on uncontested expert planning and heritage evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle and directing the City to consent to the demolition subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a six-storey, 155-unit purpose-built rental apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the unit count to 147 and making other design modifications.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal represents an appropriate intensification of an underutilized site, conforms to provincial and municipal planning policies, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing a minor variance to permit zero on-site parking spaces for 12 new residential units in an existing building.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the variance satisfied the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal relied on expert transportation evidence demonstrating sufficient available street parking in the neighbourhood and imposed conditions requiring the applicant to notify tenants of the lack of parking and provide pre-loaded transit cards.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's refusal to amend a zoning by-law to permit a 5-storey mixed-use building containing self-storage, retail, and commercial uses.

The City did not oppose the site-specific proposal.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development compatible with surrounding uses, consistent with provincial policy, and appropriate for the site.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amending by-law in principle, withholding its final order until the form of the instrument is finalized.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 16-storey residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 14-storey development.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy and the City's Official Plan, representing good planning and transit-oriented infill development.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.