Gerard C. Borean

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal by Gallu Construction Inc. regarding the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The amendments seek to permit the development of five residential towers, a mid-rise office building, a public park, and privately owned publicly accessible spaces.

The order sets out the hearing dates, procedural deadlines, and the issues list for the 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on May 17, 2027.

The applicant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and a proposed Plan of Subdivision to permit townhouse and single-detached dwellings.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal noted the parties had engaged in mediation and scheduled a 13-day hearing to commence on October 20, 2026.

The Tribunal also ordered the submission of an updated Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the Town of Halton Hills' failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit townhouse dwellings and a single-detached dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Glen Williams Community Association and participant status to an individual on consent.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for March 2026 and a 15-day merit hearing for May and June 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 5-day hearing scheduled to commence on May 25, 2026.

The hearing concerns an appeal by the applicant under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act regarding the township's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit 30 medium density dwelling units.

The appellant appealed the Township of King Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny minor variances for interior side yard setbacks and lot coverage to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development conforms to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, fits the neighbourhood character, and meets the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a golf course maintenance building.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised site plan drawings and conditions to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal heard expert planning evidence from both parties supporting the settlement.

Finding that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the applicable official plans, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site plan subject to the agreed conditions.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal and a related costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the City of Vaughan and $5,000 to the other responding parties.

The court approved a proposed settlement and certified the action for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The class consists of approximately 100 investors in a failed real estate limited partnership project.

The settlement restores the class members’ proportionate interest in the property, now with greater development density and less debt, and is considered generous.

The court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, and approved class counsel’s fees.

The action will continue only as between the defendants for unresolved crossclaims.

The appellants appealed an Engineer's Report for the Northland Estates Municipal Drain under section 48(1) of the Drainage Act, seeking to have the proposed drain moved 3 meters west to protect mature boundary trees on their property.

The Tribunal found that the Drainage Act authorizes the construction of drainage works and provides compensation for property and tree damage, superseding the Forestry Act's requirement for mutual consent to injure boundary trees.

The Tribunal accepted the engineer's evidence that the proposed location on the adjacent farmland was the least intrusive option that balanced the needs of the residential landowners and the agricultural property.

The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Mississauga appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances to permit a self-storage facility on a property with an existing automotive use.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included additional conditions requiring a minimum of 20% of the gross floor area to be used for office space and adherence to specific design plans.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated December 23, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, paragraph 15 of Attachment 1 was replaced to accurately reflect the permitted minimum landscaped open space of 24.9% of the lot area.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding minor variances for a high-rise mixed-use development incorporating residential towers and townhouses.

The proposed development was revised to increase height and density following the announcement of a planned light rail transit station adjacent to the site.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the regional official plan.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding three related appeals concerning commercial and residential developments in the City of Owen Sound.

The appeals involved two zoning by-law amendments to permit mixed-use and commercial buildings, including a grocery store, and a consent application for an access easement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposals consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement agreements.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from a summary judgment order in a real estate dispute.

The appellants (purchasers) argued that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate for meaningful appellate review, specifically regarding the breach of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), the improvidence of the subsequent sale, and the enforceability of a 20% contractual pre-judgment interest rate.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the motion judge's reasons were insufficient, as they merely summarized positions and stated conclusions without providing insight into the reasoning or factual findings.

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated January 22, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the appearances list was revised to correctly identify counsel for Magna International Inc. and Magna Structural Systems Inc. In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant sought approval of revisions to a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan Conditions, and the issuance of a final order for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, following a 2014 Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revisions, which removed phasing requirements due to secured servicing allocation and addressed municipal and conservation authority comments, represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the revised Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions and issued the final order.

Yvette Dubajic applied to pass her accounts as Estate Trustee and Power of Attorney for Property for her late father.

Her sister and niece opposed the accounts, sought an accounting back to 2003, and applied to remove Yvette as Estate Trustee.

The court found Yvette acted with ordinary prudence and diligence, passed her accounts for the relevant periods, and dismissed the application to remove her.

The court also awarded Yvette $15,000 in executor's compensation and ordered the opposing parties to personally pay a portion of her legal costs due to their unreasonable conduct.

This was a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the municipality's approval of zoning by-law amendments and a consent application for a commercial and residential development.

The Tribunal scheduled separate consecutive video hearings for the three related appeals and directed the parties to submit draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists.

The City of Vaughan and Promenade Limited Partnership brought motions for the approval of nine settlements regarding appeals of the City's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Transition By-law 039-2022.

The settlements proposed site-specific amendments to recognize previous zoning approvals and facilitate mixed-use, residential, and commercial developments.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments had regard for matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the York Region Official Plan, and the Vaughan Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the proposed zoning by-law amendments.