Mr. Stagl

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant revised the proposal to a 21-storey condominium building and reached a settlement with the City and neighbouring residents' associations.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conforms to the applicable official plans and provincial policies, the Tribunal approved the development subject to the fulfillment of final conditions.

The appellant operated a commercial parking lot that was not in compliance with the applicable Zoning By-Law.

The appellant sought to establish that the property constituted a legal non-conforming use by demonstrating continuous operation of a commercial parking lot since the By-Law's passage in 1993.

The application judge found that the lot had been used as an accessory lot rather than a stand-alone commercial parking lot from 1993 through 1996, and therefore fell out of compliance when its use changed.

The application judge granted declaratory relief and an injunction restraining operation of the parking lot.

On appeal, the appellant failed to establish a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board granting minor variances for a rear two-story addition to the respondents' neighbouring property.

The applicants argued that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding the third test for a minor variance, specifically whether the side yard variances maintained the general intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the Board's failure to articulate its analysis on this mandated requirement constituted a fundamental flaw and an error of law.

Leave to appeal was granted, and costs were awarded to the applicants.

The Town of Oakville appealed a decision of the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board that stayed a zoning by-law against the respondents, who were growing crops on contaminated former refinery lands zoned industrial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby denying natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court held as a matter of law that 'farming' is a land use, not a 'normal farm practice', and the Farming and Food Production Protection Act cannot be used to introduce a new agricultural use on land where farming is prohibited by a valid zoning by-law.