Martin Rendl

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 21-storey residential building.

The City and TRCA brought a joint motion to strike certain witness statement evidence, which was granted in part.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and conformed to the applicable York Region Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft OPA and ZBA in principle, subject to a holding provision requiring a finalized Tree Removal, Compensation and Restoration Mitigation Plan.

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three of six minor variances required to expand an existing church and daycare facility.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed expansion, including reductions in parking and increases in building height and gross floor area, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved all six variances, finding they were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building in the Village of Yorkville.

The Tribunal found that the subject property is located within a designated low-rise area under Site and Area Specific Policy 211.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the policy boundary should be moved to accommodate the tall building, finding that the proposed development did not respect or reinforce the existing low-scale character of the neighbourhood.

The appeals were dismissed as the applications did not conform to the City's Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

The applicants appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval to permit a stacked townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised 28-unit proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit a rear addition containing two suites to an existing heritage dwelling.

The proposed variances were for building depth and rear yard setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, represented gentle intensification, and was designed to protect the heritage integrity of the main residence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's expert witnesses over the respondent's experts, noting that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 26-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on all issues except the required number of ground-floor retail units, which was later resolved through revised amendments requiring four at-grade retail units and a holding provision to ensure the design reinforces the local main street character.

An adjacent property owner opposed the settlement, raising concerns about shadow, privacy, and transition.

The Tribunal found that the revised amendments provide appropriate transition in scale, mitigate impacts on adjacent neighbourhoods, conform with the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, and represent good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised amendments in principle.

The Summerhill Residents Association requested a review of a TLAB decision that authorized minor variances for a rear three-storey addition to a townhouse.

The Association alleged that the presiding Member violated procedural fairness by plagiarizing the applicant's expert planner, made errors of law regarding Official Plan policies on prevailing density, and acted outside jurisdiction by approving a landscaping variance involving encroachments.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding no evidence of bias, plagiarism, or jurisdictional error.

The Chair held that the presiding Member properly exercised discretion in preferring the expert planner's evidence over the Association's submissions and correctly applied the statutory tests.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying three minor variances for a proposed rear addition to an existing townhouse.

The variances related to rear yard soft landscaping, distance between main walls, and floor space index.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represented a modest addition compatible with the neighbourhood's physical character.

The Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, subject to a standard urban forestry condition.

The applicant requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused applications for consent to sever a property and associated minor variances to construct a new detached dwelling.

The applicant alleged the presiding TLAB Member violated procedural fairness by allowing participants to question witnesses and made errors of law in interpreting the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The TLAB Chair dismissed the review request, finding no violation of natural justice and concluding that the original Member properly interpreted and applied the relevant planning policies and evidence.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan approval to permit a 19-storey mixed-use building.

The City and the applicant reached a settlement, which was opposed by a group of residents and a neighbouring seniors residence, Belmont House, primarily due to concerns over shadow impacts.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development adequately limits shadow impacts on Belmont House in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines, and that the settlement represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle.

The plaintiffs brought an action seeking declarations that the defendant, Ashcroft Homes – Eastboro Inc., was not entitled to terminate their agreements of purchase and sale for residential homes.

The plaintiffs argued that the early termination condition (Condition 2 of Schedule U) was contrary to the Tarion Addendum, was invoked untimely, or that Ashcroft breached its obligation to take commercially reasonable steps to satisfy the condition.

The court found that Condition 2 was consistent with the Tarion Addendum, Ashcroft terminated the agreements in a timely manner, and Ashcroft did take all commercially reasonable steps to satisfy the condition.

The action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing eleven variances required to construct a new detached dwelling.

The main issue was whether the proposed height variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found that the proposed development respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consents to sever two existing residential lots into three, along with associated minor variances for lot frontage, area, side yard setbacks, and coverage.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) considered competing expert planning evidence regarding whether the proposed lots respected and reinforced the physical character of the Don Mills neighbourhood.

The TLAB preferred the qualitative analysis of the owners' planner, finding that the proposed lots represented gradual change that fit the existing neighbourhood character.

The appeal was allowed in part only to approve revised applications submitted by the owners, and the consents and variances were approved subject to conditions.

The applicant proposed to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new three-storey single-detached dwelling, requiring variances for building length and floor space index.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the adjacent neighbour appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The TLAB allowed the appeal and refused the variances, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the variances respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the immediate neighbourhood, particularly regarding density and massing, and therefore did not meet the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellant sought variance relief to permit outdoor storage of building materials on a property zoned Prestige Employment, where such use is explicitly prohibited.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that authorizing a completely prohibited use constitutes an amendment to the zoning by-law rather than a minor variance.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposal failed to maintain the general intent and purpose of both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the construction of a replacement detached garage on a corner lot.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body heard uncontested expert planning evidence that the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized, subject to conditions requiring the closure of existing open building permits and the planting of boulevard trees to address long-standing property standards issues.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to authorize variances for rear yard alterations, including an inground pool, a rear deck, and a pavilion.

The requested variances related to deck projection, building length and depth, lot coverage, soft landscaping, and pool equipment setbacks.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances for maximum lot coverage, exterior main wall height, and floor space index (FSI) to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling.

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

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's land use planning expert, concluding that the proposed FSI was reasonably deployed within the zoning by-law's performance standards and that the development would respect the character of the neighbourhood.

This application concerned an "orphan lane" in Toronto, a private laneway whose original 19th-century owners were deceased and whose heirs could not be located despite diligent efforts.

The applicant, a corporation formed to acquire the lane and owning all adjacent properties, sought an order under Rule 14.05(3)(e) to vest title of the lane in its name and extinguish any claims from the original owners or their successors.

The City of Toronto was served and did not oppose the application, confirming the lane was private.

The court granted the order, finding that the applicant was the only party with a well-founded claim and that vesting title in the applicant would ensure the lane's maintenance as part of the redevelopment of surrounding properties.