Donald Given

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a six-storey office, retail, and industrial complex.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and presented a revised Zoning By-law Amendment.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment was consistent with provincial policies, conformed to the official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant, TransCanada PipeLines Limited, appealed the City of Vaughan's Official Plan Amendment No. 50 (Block 41 Secondary Plan) to ensure its natural gas compressor station operations were protected from potential impacts of new development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented modifications to the OPA, including policies specific to noise influence and low frequency sound.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications represented good planning, were consistent with provincial policies, and approved the OPA as modified.

The applicant, Icona Hospitality Inc., sought an order under s. 61(1) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act to delete restrictive covenants from the title to its land.

The covenants restricted the site's use solely to a hotel.

Icona proposed a mixed-use high-rise redevelopment, arguing the covenants were spent or unsuitable due to changed planning policies and the area's designation as an Urban Growth Centre.

The respondents, beneficiaries of the covenants, opposed the application, citing potential negative impacts on their own development plans and market competition.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Icona failed to demonstrate that the covenants were spent or so unsuitable as to be of no value, or that their assertion by the respondents would be vexatious.

The court emphasized that the jurisdiction under s. 61(1) must be exercised with caution and an order will seldom be granted if prejudicial to the adjacent landowner, rejecting a simple balancing of monetary interests.