Ian Andres

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a 12 and 14 storey residential building connected by a seven-storey central element.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft planning instruments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several prerequisite conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Metroview Developments (Garden) Inc. against the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal approved the revised Issues List and Procedural Order on consent of the parties and confirmed the scheduling of a 15-day merit hearing to commence on September 18, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 74-storey mixed-use building.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the upcoming 10-day hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Brampton's adoption of Official Plan Amendment 206-210 (Heritage Heights Secondary Plan).

The parties agreed to collaborate on policy wording and continue drafting the Procedural Order and Issues List, with a focus on resolving issues related to the GTA West Corridor.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference for July 6, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order by June 22, 2023.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Vaughan Official Plan and related site-specific zoning and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal scheduled a Phase 3 Hearing for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan and approved a final Procedural Order.

A request by an adjacent landowner to join its appeals to the Phase 3 Hearing was denied due to the advanced stage of the proceedings and the need for proper notice.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 74-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 9-day merit hearing to commence in April 2024.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 379.

The City of Toronto and appellant 1709492 Ontario Limited agreed to extend the deadline for the appellant to submit a complete site-specific application to May 31, 2023.

The Tribunal ordered the extension on consent, with the condition that if the application is not submitted by the deadline, the appeal will be dismissed without further notice.

Home Depot brought a motion to strike the City of Toronto's Amended Statements of Issues and several expert reports in a property assessment appeal.

Home Depot argued that the City's reply reports improperly raised new issues, specifically highest and best use and replacement cost new, which amounted to case-splitting.

The Assessment Review Board found that pleadings cannot be struck, but prohibited the City from relying on any expert reports addressing highest and best use or replacement cost new, as these issues were not properly pled and there were no exceptional circumstances to allow late amendments.

The City was permitted to rely on its reply report concerning depreciation and economic obsolescence.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframe.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised they were engaged in without prejudice discussions on a revised development proposal.

On consent, the Tribunal issued a Procedural Order scheduling a third Case Management Conference for April 2023 and a 15-day merit hearing for September 2023 to allow time for the City to consider the revised proposal.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval applications within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal denied a participant status request due to non-attendance and lack of clarity.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 14-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals related to the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan.

The parties confirmed that a Phase 3 hearing was no longer necessary and scoped the remaining issues for a Phase 4 hearing.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List for the Phase 4 hearing, scheduled a six-week hearing for May 2023, and granted party status to Ibrans Developments Ltd. on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to organize hearing dates for Phase 6C – South West Etobicoke appeals from the City of Toronto's proposed Official Plan Amendment 231.

The Tribunal approved a Procedural Order for Hearing Group No. 1 and scheduled hearing dates for Hearing Groups 1, 2, and 3, as well as a settlement hearing regarding the Champagne Centre.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval applications within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to a local development group and participant status to a neighbouring resident and a homeowners association on consent.

The parties were directed to provide a draft joint Issues List, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2020 to 2022 taxation years, arguing that the current value of the property had decreased due to COVID-19 regulatory restrictions.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the correct valuation day remained January 1, 2016, and that the issue of the property's value as of that date had already been resolved by a settlement agreement for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the correct valuation day was January 1, 2016, and applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to prevent the appellant from re-litigating the property's value.

The appeals were dismissed.

In a property assessment appeal, the City of Vaughan brought a motion to call a witness to provide oral testimony regarding a comparable sales analysis, despite failing to file a witness statement or expert report by the required deadline.

The City argued the witness would provide lay opinion evidence admissible under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the request to call the witness, finding that the proposed testimony constituted expert opinion evidence on property valuation, which requires a compliant expert report under the Board's Rules.

The Board permitted the late filing of the City's Statement of Response, but clarified it could only be used to raise issues and not as evidence.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (OPAs 13-18).

The City brought a motion for partial approval (Draft Order 3) to resolve numerous Phase 2 issues based on an Agreed Statement of Facts by land use planning experts, which the Tribunal approved.

The Tribunal also considered Draft Order 4 to implement Minutes of Settlement regarding settlement boundaries.

Fenelon Trails requested a deferral of the Fenelon Falls urban boundary approval, arguing it would restrict growth.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting Fenelon Trails was a non-appellant party sheltering under another appeal that had settled, and approved Draft Orders 3 and 4 to implement the settlement and boundary adjustments.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal was updated on settlement discussions, a recent Minister's Zoning Order, and the resolution of issues with one of the appellants.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file a final hearing plan by February 9, 2022, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and hearing dates.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal addressed a request for an adjournment based on a pending disposition letter, confirmed there were no concerns with certain lands remaining within the Lindsay urban settlement boundary, extended the deadline for the Agreed Statement of Facts, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and various Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal granted a motion for disclosure, allowing information pertaining to servicing capacity to be entered into evidence at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied a request by certain appellants to postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue, directing that the hearing proceed as originally scheduled.

Finally, the Tribunal approved the modified Official Plan Schedules A-2, A-4, and A-5, and finalized the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing.

The applicants sought a determination of the value of their lands under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act to calculate the correct cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The applicants had paid $13,520,539.95 under protest and sought a refund based on a lower land valuation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicants' appraisers and economists, finding that a 12.5% downward adjustment for the COVID-19 pandemic and a 7.5% adjustment for view/shadow encumbrances were reasonable.

The Tribunal determined the market value of the lands to be $111,660,000 and ordered the City to refund $4,698,173.95 for the parkland payment, plus $9,686.08 for overcharged appraisal fees.