Giouzelin Mutlu

The appellant developer sued the respondent resident for defamation, economic torts, and trespass after the respondent publicly opposed a mall redevelopment and complained to the city about safety and bylaw issues.

The respondent successfully moved to dismiss the action as a SLAPP under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, and was awarded $25,000 in damages and full indemnity costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and damages award, finding the action was inextricably linked to the respondent's public expression and lacked substantial merit.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs, finding the motion judge erred by pre-determining the costs scale, and reduced the costs award from $156,394.54 to $75,000.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by 1322104 Ontario Inc. regarding a site plan application for a 14-unit townhouse development in Toronto.

The order sets out the procedural deadlines, issues list, and order of evidence for a 7-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 9, 2026.

Key issues include the safety specifications of a proposed crash wall adjacent to the Metrolinx rail corridor.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Development Charge By-Law No. 11370-2022.

The parties requested assistance with procedural matters and finalizing the Procedural Order for a phased merit hearing.

The Tribunal issued an order setting dates for the City to respond to disclosure requests, scheduling a potential motion for direction, and setting a 14-day Phase 1 Merit Hearing for June 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan control application for a 14-unit townhouse development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a seven-day merit hearing and directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

During a hearing on the merits of an appeal concerning a proposed redevelopment, the moving party brought a motion to dismiss the appeal, alleging that two expert witnesses retained by the respondents committed perjury and colluded via email.

The moving party argued the experts' evidence was tainted and should be excluded.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to make criminal findings of perjury, but had authority to address improper conduct.

The Tribunal concluded that the email exchange did not breach Rule 7.5 of the Tribunal Rules, did not impair the experts' independence or impartiality, and did not prejudice the moving party.

The motion to dismiss was denied, and the experts' evidence remained on the record.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application for a 14-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal had previously approved the zoning by-law amendment subject to post-approval conditions, including clearance from Metrolinx regarding rail safety.

After Metrolinx cleared its condition, the City required technical changes to the zoning by-law amendment to reflect updated planning policies.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the revised by-law maintained the original development principles and approved the revised zoning by-law amendment without further conditions.

A case management conference was scheduled for the site plan appeal.

At a Case Management Conference concerning appeals for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for a proposed townhouse development, the Tribunal considered Metrolinx's request for party status.

Metrolinx raised rail-safety concerns regarding the development and had not cleared a condition of the draft Zoning By-law approval.

Finding that Metrolinx had a direct and genuine interest and its involvement was necessary to resolve the appeals, the Tribunal granted Metrolinx party status on consent and scheduled a two-day hearing to address the outstanding conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and refusal to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal with reduced height and density.

The Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, representing good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's non-decision on a site plan application for a townhouse development adjacent to a Metrolinx rail corridor.

A related zoning by-law amendment appeal had an outstanding condition requiring Metrolinx's satisfaction regarding rail safety and building setbacks.

Metrolinx had expressed rail-safety concerns but was not a party to the proceedings.

The Tribunal found it necessary to compel Metrolinx's involvement due to the life-or-death nature of rail safety.

The Tribunal summoned a Metrolinx representative to a Special Hearing to provide evidence on their concerns and requested Metrolinx's counsel to attend to address party status.

The Applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit two 15-storey apartment buildings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Regional Municipality of Peel and participant status to two individuals on consent.

The Tribunal declined to set dates for a merit hearing as the parties were engaged in mediation and an issues list had not yet been finalized, instead scheduling a second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Dunpar Homes against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to Dundas Developments Limited without objection.

Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. converted its status from party to participant.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence on October 28, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc. against the City of Mississauga's passing of a zoning by-law amendment.

The Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order, scheduled a second CMC to potentially address the unappealed portions of the by-law, and set a four-day hearing on the merits.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's enactment of a city-wide zoning by-law amendment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that resolved all outstanding issues, including definitions for void areas and gross floor area, and setback regulations for townhouses.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement modifications are minor, consistent with provincial policies, conform to applicable official plans, and represent good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal deem the pre-conditions to its Interim Order satisfied, allowing its appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to proceed.

The City opposed, arguing that conditions relating to functional servicing and municipal infrastructure upgrades were not met due to concerns over the F-5-5 Guideline and combined sewer capacity.

The Tribunal found that the F-5-5 Guideline did not apply to the subject site and accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the existing municipal infrastructure had sufficient capacity to accommodate the development.

The motion was granted, and the pre-conditions were deemed satisfied.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered appeals regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed development.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals, noting they involve the same property, development proposal, and parties.

Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. was granted party status without objection.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2023 to allow the City Council to review a revised proposal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc. against the City of Mississauga's enactment of Zoning By-law 0008-2023.

The Tribunal granted party status to Fountain Hill Construction and Consulting Ltd., limiting its involvement to sheltering under the issues raised by the appellant.

The Tribunal directed that no further requests for party status would be allowed in future proceedings.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on January 8, 2024.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 15-storey residential development.

Dundas Developments Limited requested party status, which the Tribunal denied due to the late request and changing positions.

The applicant requested a follow-up Case Management Conference in two months to present a partial settlement, but the Tribunal denied this request because the applicant had not engaged with the City or the Conservation Authority regarding the proposed settlement.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a City of Mississauga Development Charges By-law, the parties disputed the wording of the Issues List.

The Tribunal directed that the terms 'fair and reasonable' be retained but placed after references to the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal also directed that references to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan be removed from an issue regarding official plan conformity, while retaining the questions on conformity with the local and regional official plans.

A 14-day hearing was scheduled.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss Dunpar Homes' appeal of the City's Parkland Conveyance By-law without a hearing, arguing the notice of appeal failed to set out sufficient objections and reasons as required by s. 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Dunpar argued that an earlier draft of its appeal letter was inadvertently filed electronically, but that it still contained sufficient planning grounds, and that a correct hard copy was also served.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's motion, finding that the electronic notice of appeal provided a sufficient 'originating core' of planning grounds, specifically that the by-law failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies, and that the appeal should not be dismissed on an overly technical basis.

The applicant requested a Telephone Conference Call due to the City's failure to sign off on post-approval conditions for previously successful official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals.

The applicant sought to consolidate a new site plan appeal with the current matter.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the site plan appeal as it was not properly before it, and directed that the impasse regarding the post-approval conditions be resolved via a formal motion supported by expert affidavits.