Ian Andres

The applicant appealed the City of Pickering's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit five high-rise towers.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was advised that the parties were engaged in without prejudice discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 19, 2026, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning the failure of the City of Pickering to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a high-density mixed-use development, the Tribunal granted party status to Emix Ltd. on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that these appeals be heard together with related site-specific appeals, as the parties had reached a comprehensive settlement in principle.

A written settlement hearing was scheduled.

The Township of Georgian Bay requested directions regarding an appeal of conditions for a draft plan of subdivision.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they are engaged in mediation regarding a remaining condition concerning a drainage easement.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day merit hearing to commence on March 23, 2026, to address the drainage issue if mediation is unsuccessful.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion for disclosure and an order for property inspection in the context of appeals concerning the 2024 and 2025 property assessments of an apartment building.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the requests were out of time and irrelevant because the current value was not in dispute.

The Assessment Review Board granted an extension of time due to exceptional circumstances, noting the appellant had recently served an expert report providing an opinion of value.

The Board granted most of the disclosure requests and ordered the property inspection, finding them relevant to the income approach valuation and highest and best use analysis, but denied one request as overbroad.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to facilitate the construction of a two-storey detached dwelling.

The requested variances related to garage floor area, garage projection, dwelling depth, front yard setback, and main wall proportionality.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that they satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert planning evidence that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and would not create unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 788, which restricts new development on the subject lands to mid-rise buildings.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested a second conference be scheduled for December 2025 to allow time for discussions and potential resolution.

The Tribunal scheduled the second Case Management Conference for December 10, 2025, and directed the parties to provide an update prior to the hearing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act, the Ontario Land Tribunal issued procedural directions.

The parties advised that the estimated hearing length could be reduced from 40 to 29 days.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file written submissions on their preferred mode of hearing and set a deadline for any motions to limit or exclude evidence.

The hearing was rescheduled to commence on June 9, 2025, and end on July 18, 2025.

A case management conference was held regarding multiple appeals concerning the North Oakville West Secondary Plan.

The appellants and the Town of Oakville have been engaged in settlement discussions and have reached an agreement in principle on a development concept for the Palermo Village Growth Area.

The parties requested that the finalization of the draft Procedural Order and Issues List be put on hold to allow settlement discussions to advance.

The Tribunal granted the request and directed the parties to provide status updates on their respective appeals.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 603-unit residential development.

The parties reached a settlement proposing three mid-rise buildings and stacked townhouses, along with a rental replacement plan.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The parties attended a case management conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act.

On consent, the parties requested an amendment to the previously issued procedural order.

The Tribunal rescinded the prior order and issued a revised procedural order setting out the schedule for documentary discovery, expert reports, and a 40-day hearing commencing in June 2025.

The appellants appealed the Town of Caledon's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Draft Plans of Subdivision for the Macville and Humber Station lands.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontroverted expert planning evidence in support.

The Tribunal approved the settlement instruments, finding they have regard to provincial interests, are consistent with the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement, and conform with the Town's Official Plan.

The City of Pickering brought a motion requesting partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 38 (OPA 38), which facilitates redevelopment and intensification along the Kingston Road Corridor.

Several site-specific appeals had been filed against OPA 38.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the unappealed portions of OPA 38 are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and conform to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion and approved OPA 38 in part, noting that this partial approval would not prejudice the remaining site-specific appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a 29-storey residential building.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on April 28, 2025, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as well as the refusal of a Heritage Permit Application, to permit an 85-storey mixed-use building at Yonge and Gerrard Streets.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the subject site is too small to accommodate the proposed tall building.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed tower setbacks and separation distances would result in unacceptable impacts on privacy, sky view, and daylighting for adjacent properties, including the existing Chelsea Hotel.

Furthermore, the proposed loading and servicing configuration, which relied on a turntable and a new driveway access, presented unresolved operational challenges and would negatively impact the public realm.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for a hearing scheduled to commence on April 14, 2025.

The underlying dispute concerns the determination of the market value of lands for the purpose of calculating cash-in-lieu of parkland payable to the City of Toronto under section 42 of the Planning Act.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of three variances required to construct a four-storey, 10-unit residential building on the existing footprint of a two-storey apartment building.

The requested variances related to floor space index and side yard setbacks.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposal provided appropriate transition to the adjacent neighbourhood, minimized shadow impacts, and maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under the Planning Act and allowed the appeal, authorizing the variances subject to a condition that construction be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the Town of Caledon's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications.

The parties reported they are actively working toward a resolution and requested further time to finalize planning instruments.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 2024 and a Hearing on the Merits for February 2025, with directions for filing settlement materials or a procedural order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing for a dispute over the determination of land value and the amount payable to the City of Toronto for cash in lieu of parkland under the Planning Act.

The hearing is scheduled for four days commencing May 13, 2025.

The claimant brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 20-day hearing regarding compensation for an expropriated leasehold interest.

The claimant sought the adjournment to pursue a Superior Court application, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make determinations under section 41 of the Expropriations Act regarding the abandonment of expropriated land.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting the late timing of the request, the lack of an emergency, the prejudice to the ready respondent, and the Tribunal's interest in maintaining its fixed hearing schedule.

The Tribunal also observed, without deciding, that it arguably has jurisdiction to make findings of fact under section 41.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision, and Site Plan to permit a four-building residential redevelopment.

The parties reached a settlement, which City Council approved in principle.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the zoning appeal in part on an interim basis, approving the draft Zoning By-law Amendment in principle subject to conditions.

The subdivision and site plan appeals were adjourned sine die.