Jonathan Rodger

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231, which established policies and designations for Employment Areas.

The site-specific appeals concerned lands in the Milliken Employment Area.

Certain appellants sought to redesignate their lands from Core Employment to General Employment with a Site and Area Specific Policy to restrict retail uses, while others sought a conversion to Mixed Use Areas to permit high-density residential towers near a GO Transit station.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, preferring the evidence of the City's planner.

The Tribunal found that the Core Employment designation was appropriate to maintain separation distances from industrial uses, and that introducing sensitive residential uses into the employment area would disrupt existing businesses and was not justified by a demonstrated need.

A condominium corporation passed a by-law to lease four common element parking spaces to each unit owner to address a parking dispute caused by a popular restaurant tenant monopolizing shared parking.

The appellant unit owner, who leased her units to the restaurant, challenged the by-law as invalid, unreasonable, and oppressive.

The application judge dismissed the application.

On appeal, the majority upheld the application judge's decision, finding the by-law valid and reasonable.

However, Justice Weiler dissented, holding the by-law invalid because it effectively created permanent exclusive use common elements without amending the declaration, and unreasonable because there was no evidence supporting an increase from two to four parking spaces per unit and no practical alternative parking existed.

The applicant, a condominium unit owner, challenged the validity of a by-law passed by the respondent condominium corporation that leased common element parking spaces to unit holders.

The applicant argued the by-law was ultra vires, discriminatory, unreasonable, and oppressive, as it restricted her tenant's (a popular restaurant) access to parking.

The court found the by-law valid under the Condominium Act, not discriminatory, and that the Board's actions were not oppressive, as they were a reasonable response to a parking monopolization issue caused by the applicant's tenant.

The application was dismissed.