Peter Smith

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 Bruce Trail Conservancy appealed a condition of provisional consent imposed by the Town of Mono's Committee of Adjustment that required the payment of a 5% Parkland Levy.

The consent allowed the creation of a new lot with an existing dwelling, leaving the retained lot for the extension of the Bruce Trail.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and removed the condition, finding that the levy was unreasonable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act because the severance did not create a need for additional parkland.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that imposing the levy on a recognized public body whose mandate is to provide public recreational trails was inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Niagara Escarpment Plan, and local official plans.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of its property by Metrolinx for the Ontario Line transit project.

The Tribunal determined the highest and best use of the property was a high-density two-tower mixed-use development.

The Tribunal screened out the impact of the Ontario Line announcement under section 14(4)(b) of the Expropriations Act.

It rejected Metrolinx's argument for a lease encumbrance deduction due to the common control of the tenant and claimant.

The Tribunal accepted the Claimant's appraiser's market value of $187 per square foot, resulting in a gross value of $88,825,000, and applied a $1,000,000 deduction for environmental remediation costs, awarding a net amount of $87,825,000.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 603-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing three mid-rise buildings and stacked townhouses, along with a rental replacement plan.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

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 appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for an 18-storey mixed-use development.

A neighbourhood association brought a motion for the Panel Member to recuse himself due to alleged bias, which the Tribunal dismissed, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

On the planning merits, the Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert evidence that the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The parties jointly requested that the Ontario Land Tribunal vary its previous Order to approve a zoning by-law amendment with an updated section 37 agreement.

The updated agreement replaces a previous benefit allowing the City to elect between a cash payment or land transfer with a requirement to transfer three properties to the City for use as future parkland at no cost.

Relying on the uncontested land use planning evidence of a Registered Professional Planner, the Tribunal found the variation to be in the public interest and represent good planning.

The Tribunal ordered the zoning by-law amendment varied retroactively.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 16-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised proposal that incorporated an adjacent property and modified the building's built form.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of technical conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit 48-storey and 59-storey mixed-use buildings.

The parties reached a full, uncontested settlement.

Relying on uncontroverted land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including rental housing replacement and heritage conservation agreements.

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 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 applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use community with five residential and mixed-use buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement in principle.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal approved the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, while adjourning the Plan of Subdivision and fee protest appeals sine die.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development at 102 Berkeley Street.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 35-storey building that includes an expanded public park along the street frontage to maintain the low-rise character.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and City Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment in principle, withholding its final order until several conditions are met.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with four residential towers and a hotel.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced tower floor plates and overall gross floor area.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final by-law drafts and confirmation of infrastructure capacity.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal with reduced gross floor area and parking.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the City confirms that necessary conditions, including servicing reports and agreements, have been satisfied.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit an 18-storey mixed-use building.

The appellant neighbourhood association argued the City failed to consider public concerns and the proposal did not conform to planning policies.

The Tribunal found the appeal raised no legitimate land use planning grounds, relied on unsubstantiated apprehensions, and lacked supporting expert evidence.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed without a hearing pursuant to s. 34(25) of the Planning Act and s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 43-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, the City's Official Plan, and applicable secondary plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until certain conditions are met.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 14-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal heard uncontested expert evidence that the proposed development is appropriate, fits harmoniously with the existing context, and meets the intent of the applicable policy framework.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment, finding it represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with 35-storey and 33-storey residential towers.

The parties reached a settlement, which was supported by uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.