Julius De Ruyter

The applicants brought a motion seeking an extension of the lapsing date for a Draft Plan of Subdivision approved in 2010.

The Town opposed the extension, arguing the applicants had not used best efforts to clear conditions and that the plan should lapse to allow for greater intensification under current planning policies.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had demonstrated best efforts to clear conditions, noting that delays in servicing were partly attributable to the Town.

The Tribunal also found that the applicants would suffer prejudice if forced to restart the planning process, and that the Draft Plan continues to represent good planning and conforms with current provincial and municipal policies.

The motion was granted and the Draft Plan was extended to October 15, 2026.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances for a two-storey rear addition.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body considered whether the requested building depth variance of 22.77m met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal found that the proposal did not respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character of the neighbourhood, failing to maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant purchased 51.5 acres of land from the respondents, with an agreement to use 'best efforts' to obtain a severance of a one-acre parcel containing the respondents' home.

The trial judge found the appellant breached this obligation and ordered specific performance.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the evidence and erred in awarding specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual conclusions were supported by the record and the award of specific performance was reasonable given the unique nature of the property.