David McKay

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment at 1900 Eglinton Avenue East.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered a proposed settlement between the applicant and the City, supported by uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal found that the proposed settlement, which includes 12 new residential and mixed-use buildings, public parkland, and affordable housing, represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policy, and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of three 7-storey apartment buildings with 345 units, including an affordable housing component.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies and conforms to applicable official plans, the Tribunal approved the settlement and the requested amendments.

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

The parties reached a settlement on a revised 11-storey proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the settlement in principle, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the zoning by-law and a Section 37 agreement.

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

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the by-law amendments and required studies.

The applicant sought a minor variance to reduce the required parking spaces from 457 to 329 to permit an indoor electric go-kart track in an existing multi-tenant commercial plaza.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variance, and the adjacent property owner appealed, arguing the reduction would cause spillover parking and trespass onto its lands.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that peak parking demands could be accommodated through shared parking and that the variance met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed and the variance authorized, subject to conditions requiring enhanced signage, lighting, and parking lot striping to mitigate potential impacts on the adjacent property.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on their Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 38-storey residential building.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 37-storey proposal that includes 19 replacement rental townhouse units and a parkland dedication.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending satisfaction of conditions.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on the Crown's failure to make proper and timely disclosure of relevant video surveillance evidence, and the loss of some of that evidence.

The court found that the police were unacceptably negligent in failing to preserve all relevant video footage, resulting in a breach of the accused's rights under section 7 of the Charter.

However, the court concluded that the prejudice to the accused was minimal and could be adequately addressed by alternative remedies, including adjournments and a specific jury instruction regarding the lost evidence.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.