Michael McClelland

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments, as well as a site plan application and a heritage alteration permit, to permit a 28-storey mixed-use building in the Church Street Village Character Area (CSVCA).

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed tall building form was incompatible with the planned mid-rise context of the CSVCA under the North Downtown Yonge Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP 382).

The Tribunal held that the proposal failed to conform to angular plane policies, would cast unacceptable new net shadows on Barbara Hall Park, and did not represent good planning or urban design despite its location in a Major Transit Station Area.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, draft plan of subdivision, and heritage permits to facilitate a residential subdivision on the former Rand Estate.

The Tribunal approved the OPA to correct the urban boundary but found the proposed subdivision design unacceptable due to inadequate vehicular access safety, insufficient protection of cultural heritage landscapes and attributes, and unacceptable impacts to mature trees and a wetland.

The Tribunal issued an interim order granting some heritage permits in principle while directing the applicant to substantially redesign the subdivision to conserve key heritage features in situ, retain the wetland, and secure safe access, potentially through a shared access with adjacent lands.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit an 8-storey residential addition above an existing church.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert evidence in land use planning and heritage conservation that the revised proposal represents appropriate intensification, respects the heritage resource, and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the planning instruments and a Heritage Easement Agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use development incorporating heritage facades.

The City opposed the development, arguing it represented overdevelopment and failed to fit the planned context of a 6-storey maximum height.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding the proposal's design, setbacks, and stepbacks appropriate for the deep corner lot.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, approving the amendments in principle subject to final conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use development incorporating heritage facades.

The City opposed the development, arguing it represented overdevelopment and failed to fit the planned context of a 6-storey maximum height.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding the proposal's design, setbacks, and stepbacks appropriate for the deep corner lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle subject to the satisfaction of pre-requisite conditions.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that approved a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 14-storey hotel, which required the demolition of two buildings designated by the City under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The LPAT, acting exclusively under the Planning Act, found the buildings had no cultural heritage value and approved the rezoning conditional on the developer obtaining a demolition permit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LPAT exceeded its jurisdiction by impugning the legality of the City's heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act while purporting to exercise powers exclusively under the Planning Act.

The applicants brought a motion to compel an expert witness, retained by the respondent SORE, to answer questions refused during cross-examination on his affidavit.

The underlying application sought to quash municipal instruments authorizing Notices of Intention to Designate the applicants' property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The refused questions related to statements the expert made alleging the applicants engaged in 'demolition by neglect'.

The court granted the motion, finding the questions had a semblance of relevance to the issues in the application and the credibility of the expert's evidence, and did not constitute an abuse of process.

The applicant, the Town of Oakville, brought a motion to compel the respondents, Clublink Corporation ULC and Clublink Holdings Limited, to answer certain questions and produce documents refused during cross-examinations of their expert witnesses.

The motion concerned the interpretation of section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act in the context of the Glen Abbey golf course redevelopment.

The court dismissed most of the applicant's requests, finding the documents irrelevant to the narrow issues or the expert's independence.

However, it ordered the production of any separate written retainer agreement for a heritage impact assessment, if such an agreement existed, deeming it marginally relevant to the expert's independence.

The court also addressed and admonished counsel for an improper ex parte communication made after the motion hearing concluded.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Chair dismissing their Request for Review of a Hearing Officer's decision.

The Hearing Officer had approved an Official Plan amendment allowing residential development on lands, parts of which were designated as a cultural heritage landscape.

The moving party argued the OMB erred by not giving deference to the factual findings of the Conservation Review Board (CRB) regarding the extent of the heritage landscape, raising issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no question of law, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the OMB decision, and that the matter was not of sufficient general importance.