G. Borean

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mid-rise residential development in Kleinburg.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the building heights and density, and introduced holding provisions to address heritage, servicing, and design concerns.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments as modified.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications within statutory timelines.

The Tribunal deferred rulings on participant status requests to clarify potential duplication.

A second CMC was scheduled for May 11, 2026, to finalize status requests and review the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed Condition 19 of a draft plan of subdivision approval, which required undefined upgrades to Old Lakeshore Road.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to amend the condition.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested land use planning evidence that the revised condition, which limits the scope of road upgrades and aligns them with the Town's Development Charge Background Study, is reasonable, consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to local official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the condition.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual and denied it to another who did not attend.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for May 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against a Zoning By-law Amendment passed by the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to the property owners, Kirby 27 Development Limited and Copper Kirby Development Limited.

Despite the appellants' request to delay scheduling due to pending court matters, the Tribunal approved the Draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 19-day video hearing on the merits to commence in June 2025.

The property owner requested a Hearing of Necessity regarding the proposed fee simple expropriation of a portion of its property by the Regional Municipality of Peel for the Airport Road improvement project.

The Authority presented evidence that the taking was required for road widening, drainage improvements, and ditching.

The property owner called no evidence and acknowledged the Authority's position.

The Tribunal found that the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the Authority's objectives.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for official plan and zoning by-law amendments and a draft plan of subdivision, the Tribunal considered requests for party status.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to the corporate owners of a nearby property.

The Tribunal denied party status to individual nearby property owners who could not specify how the development would impact their interests, granting them participant status instead.

The Tribunal declined the appellant's request to schedule hearing dates due to the lack of an issues list and scheduled a third Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to approve minor variances for the construction of a detached dwelling.

Following mediation and a subsequent settlement among the parties, revised variances were submitted.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, the Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised variances subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of draft plan of subdivision approval conditions.

The Township of Georgian Bay and the District of Muskoka requested and were granted party status without opposition.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow time for settlement discussions and potential mediation.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals and provisionally granted party status to a ratepayers association despite its late filing, finding no undue prejudice to the appellant.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the City of Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and Transitional By-law No. 039-2022.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities, consolidated the proceedings for both by-laws, and set deadlines for filing comments.

Additionally, the Tribunal approved a settlement regarding the property at 4603 and 4611 Highway 7, amending the zoning by-law to correct site-specific development standards based on uncontested planning evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct typographical errors in its previous decision dated April 28, 2022.

The amendments added Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited as a party and corrected the spelling of a counsel's name from Calvin Lance to Calvin Lantz.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (Golden Mile Secondary Plan), the appellant 1941 Eglinton East Holdings Inc. brought a motion to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate land use designation for its lands.

The City opposed the motion, arguing it was premature and that a motion regarding the Tribunal's jurisdiction should be heard first.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's motion, finding it in the public interest to provisionally schedule the hearing pending the outcome of the City's jurisdictional motion, as doing so would offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The applicants and the City of Vaughan brought motions for costs against the appellants, Humberplex Developments Inc. and Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc., following the dismissal of their appeals regarding Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48.

The costs motions primarily related to a motion to strike brought by the appellants, which sought to exclude expert planning evidence based on hearsay and innuendo regarding alleged bias and improper influence.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' conduct in bringing the motion to strike was unreasonable and warranted an award of costs.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in costs to the applicants and $20,000 to the City, payable primarily by Humberplex.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use 11-storey building.

The parties reached a settlement in principle.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments satisfied all statutory tests, had regard for provincial interests, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approved the amendments in principle, and withheld the final order pending the fulfillment of the City's conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mid-rise residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a 0.20 hectare parkland dedication, the inclusion of commercial space, and the use of holding provisions to address servicing and access.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal conforms to provincial and municipal policies, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part and the instruments were approved in principle.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48, which redesignate lands for the residential redevelopment of a golf course, part of which is within the Greenbelt Plan boundary.

The appellants argued the amendments were premature and raised concerns regarding need, stormwater management, compatibility, and transportation.

The Tribunal found that the phased planning approach was appropriate and that the amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Region's Official Plan, and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 9-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted a request from a party to be removed from the proceedings.

On consent of the remaining parties, the Tribunal scheduled a 9-day video hearing to commence in January 2022 and provided directions for refinements to the draft Procedural Order.

The defendants brought a motion seeking additional production of documents and an order that this action be tried together with or consecutively to a related proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to file a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim and sought orders compelling further documentary disclosure and updated information from the defendants.

The court held that, following amendment of the pleading, document production should be assessed in relation to the amended claim and limited to documents relevant to common customers and vendors.

The court ordered ongoing disclosure obligations on the defendants regarding common customers and vendors but declined to order the actions tried together.

An interim award of $35,000 was granted to the defendants as costs thrown away arising from the amendment.