Michael Bissett

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of minor variances and a site plan application for a proposed self-storage facility.

The parties jointly requested to separate the appeals, holding the site plan appeal in abeyance, which the Tribunal granted.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the requested variances for increased height, reduced parking, and reduced loading space met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The minor variance appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized.

The appellants brought a motion seeking approval of site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 144 to facilitate mixed-use developments on St. Clair Avenue West.

The modifications updated compatibility and mitigation study requirements for residential uses near existing meat processing plants.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence and the settlement reached with the City of Toronto, the Tribunal approved the modifications.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan for a residential development on Symington Avenue.

Following an earlier Interim Order approving a settlement, the parties reached a revised settlement reflecting design changes, including a shift to a purpose-built rental building and increased height and density.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the revised settlement and amended the Interim Order, finding the proposal consistent with provincial policies and representing good planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 29-storey mixed-use development.

At a settlement hearing, the parties presented a revised proposal that no longer required an Official Plan Amendment.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment was consistent with provincial policy, conformed to the City's Official Plan, and represented good land use planning.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 30-storey mixed-use building at 335 Yonge Street.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 16-storey mid-rise building with a 5-storey podium.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies and represents good planning, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a residential tower development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for 18 and 19-storey buildings connected by a 5-storey podium.

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

The appeal was allowed in part, with the draft Zoning By-law Amendments approved in principle, subject to the satisfaction of pre-requisite conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (OPAs 13-18).

The City brought a motion for partial approval (Draft Order 3) to resolve numerous Phase 2 issues based on an Agreed Statement of Facts by land use planning experts, which the Tribunal approved.

The Tribunal also considered Draft Order 4 to implement Minutes of Settlement regarding settlement boundaries.

Fenelon Trails requested a deferral of the Fenelon Falls urban boundary approval, arguing it would restrict growth.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting Fenelon Trails was a non-appellant party sheltering under another appeal that had settled, and approved Draft Orders 3 and 4 to implement the settlement and boundary adjustments.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 27-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 23-storey building.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies, in conformity with the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amended subject to conditions, including a Section 37 community benefits contribution.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's approval of site-specific Zoning By-law Amendments permitting a 13-storey residential building.

Following successful Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement involving revised building setbacks and balcony locations.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the revised Zoning By-law Amendment based on uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represented appropriate residential intensification.

The appellant appealed the Town's refusal of a Zoning By-Law Amendment to relocate a Convenience Commercial Block within a subdivision from an approved site next to a central park to a proposed site further south along an arterial road.

The Tribunal evaluated the planning and economic merits of both sites.

While both sites conformed to applicable planning policies, the Tribunal preferred the appellant's evidence that the proposed site offered greater visibility, access, and competitive advantage, which would better ensure the economic viability of future tenants.

The Tribunal also found it more practical to re-purpose an existing sales pavilion on the proposed site rather than demolish it and rebuild nearby.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended.

The respondent, Elena Cherny, leased a house to the applicants, 10381187 Canada Inc. and Elias Markos, for a 10-year term, with the understanding that it would be renovated into six units for short-term rentals.

Cherny completed the renovations without proper planning permission or building permits.

After a City of Toronto Order to Comply, Cherny restored the house to a single-family dwelling and locked out the applicants.

The applicants sought specific performance of the lease and damages, registering a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on the property.

Cherny brought a motion to discharge the CPL.

The court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for any breach of the lease, as the property was not unique in the commercial context of short-term rentals, and specific performance was not possible given the unlikelihood of obtaining the necessary zoning variances.

The CPL was discharged with conditions to protect the applicants' potential damages award, and a trial was ordered to determine the legality of the lease and whether Cherny breached it.