Paul Stagl

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as well as the refusal of a Heritage Permit Application, to permit an 85-storey mixed-use building at Yonge and Gerrard Streets.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the subject site is too small to accommodate the proposed tall building.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed tower setbacks and separation distances would result in unacceptable impacts on privacy, sky view, and daylighting for adjacent properties, including the existing Chelsea Hotel.

Furthermore, the proposed loading and servicing configuration, which relied on a turntable and a new driveway access, presented unresolved operational challenges and would negatively impact the public realm.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 19-storey mixed-use building.

Following a settlement hearing, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered affidavit evidence from a land use planner and found the revised proposal represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendment to Zoning By-law 569-2013.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 59-storey mixed-use building.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal that addressed heritage conservation, height, and built form issues.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plan policies, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the settlement in principle, withholding its final order until outstanding conditions were satisfied.

The applicants sought a statutory injunction under section 380 of the City of Toronto Act to restrain the respondent from operating a commercial parking lot in contravention of a zoning by-law.

The respondent conceded the non-compliance but argued the parking lot was a legal non-conforming use.

The court found the applicants had standing as taxpayers and established a clear breach of the by-law.

The respondent failed to prove continuous use as a commercial parking lot since the by-law's passage, as the property was previously used as an accessory lot.

Finding no exceptional circumstances, the court granted the statutory injunction and related declaratory relief.

The applicant challenged the legality of a municipal by-law that prohibited charging fees for visitor parking at residential apartment buildings, arguing the municipality lacked jurisdiction and a planning rationale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the power to pass pay parking prohibition by-laws is necessarily implied from the express power to restrict land use under section 34(1) of the Planning Act.

The court also accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the prohibition was enacted in the context of planning policy and rejected the argument that the by-law improperly discriminated between commercial and residential landlords.