Robert Dragicevic

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 building.

The parties reached a settlement for a 35-storey building, which includes parkland dedication and community benefits.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies and representing good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlement in principle and withheld its final order pending the execution of necessary agreements and fulfillment of conditions.

The applicants sought a determination of the value of their lands under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act to calculate the correct cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The applicants had paid $13,520,539.95 under protest and sought a refund based on a lower land valuation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' appraisers and economists, finding that a 12.5% downward adjustment for the COVID-19 pandemic and a 7.5% adjustment for view/shadow encumbrances were reasonable.

The Tribunal determined the market value of the lands to be $111,660,000 and ordered the City to refund $4,698,173.95 for the parkland payment, plus $9,686.08 for overcharged appraisal fees.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to phase the proceedings, separating a contested woodlot into a future phase.

The Tribunal converted the case management conference into a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, allowed the appeals in part to approve the planning instruments for the first phase of the development.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that granted four minor variances to permit the construction of a three-storey retirement home in a Highway Commercial zone.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Board failed to properly apply the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, misinterpreted the Official Plan and zoning by-law, and failed to justify how significant departures from density limits and lot coverage requirements could be considered minor.