Ian Daniel Andres

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.

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.

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.

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 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 Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's adoption of the Garden District Heritage Conservation District designation and Plan.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence in heritage planning, urban design, and land use planning, the Tribunal found the revised Plan consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and appropriate under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appeals were allowed in part to replace the original Plan with the revised settlement version.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 20-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 21-storey building, which was endorsed by City Council.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested land use planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the site plan is finalized.

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.

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) brought a motion seeking disclosure of appraisals or opinions of value from the appellant, Home Depot.

The motion was brought significantly after the deadline for disclosure disputes set out in the Schedule of Events.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify amending the Schedule of Events to permit the late motion.

Consequently, the motion for disclosure was denied, though the schedule was adjusted to accommodate the delay caused by the motion itself.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident.

As the parties were unable to reach a settlement, the Tribunal scheduled a 12-day video hearing on the merits and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 14-storey mixed-use development.

Following an interim decision that directed a reduced height, the parties reached a settlement for an 11-storey building.

Based on uncontested land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement in principle, withholding its final order until various conditions, including a Section 37 agreement for a $600,000 community benefits contribution, are satisfied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

The Tribunal granted party status to three non-appellant entities, subject to their sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal noted that the parties have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation and found it premature to require the preparation of an Issues List until mediation is completed.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2021.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

Three non-appellant entities were granted party status on consent, subject to the requirement that they shelter under issues raised by existing appellants.

The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed to enter Tribunal-led mediation to scope issues and find common ground.

The Tribunal found it premature to require the parties to finalize an Issues List before the conclusion of mediation, but ordered the City to submit a draft Issues List prior to the next CMC.

A second CMC was scheduled for October 2021.

The applicants, commercial real estate developers, sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Toronto Council to deny their applications for property tax rebate grants under a community improvement plan by-law.

The applicants argued that because their projects met the threshold eligibility criteria, the City was required to approve the grants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the by-law and governing legislation conferred broad discretion on the Council to consider other factors, including whether the grants were economically necessary for the projects to proceed.

The Court also found no denial of procedural fairness and awarded costs to the City.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) dismissing their application for minor variances.

Concurrently, the moving parties sought an internal review of the decision under TLAB's rules, and the TLAB Chair directed that a review of ten of the twelve variances proceed.

The Divisional Court found the motion for leave to appeal premature, as the administrative decision-making process had not ended.

To prevent fragmentation and misallocation of resources, the court adjourned the motion pending the final determination of the TLAB review process.