Ian Flett

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's zoning by-law amendment appeal without a hearing.

At the commencement of the case management conference, the presiding Member recused himself due to a recent professional relationship with the appellant's land use planner.

The motion and case management conference were adjourned to be heard by a different Member.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building containing residential units, a church, a daycare, and community space.

The property is partially located within a regulatory floodplain, which will be dedicated to the conservation authority.

The City and the conservation authority settled with the applicant, but two local community associations opposed the development, raising concerns about built form, transition to the adjacent neighbourhood, and traffic impacts.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, finding that the proposed tall mid-rise building is contextually appropriate, provides an acceptable transition to the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood, and represents good land use planning consistent with provincial policies and the municipal official plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings leading up to and including a 21-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals of the City of Toronto's Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 183 and By-law No. 235-2-16, which designates the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District and Plan.

The applicants, who are neighbours of the respondent property owner, sought judicial review of a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances.

Following legislative amendments that removed third-party appeal rights to the local appeal body, the applicants argued they had public interest standing to seek judicial review and alleged procedural unfairness and inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants lacked public interest standing, were afforded adequate procedural fairness, and that the Committee's reasons were sufficient when read in context.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing minor variances required to construct a rear deck and utility shed.

The tribunal heard uncontested expert land use planning evidence that the proposed structures were consistent with the neighbourhood's physical character, created no privacy impacts, and satisfied the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the variances subject to conditions.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal by the applicant following the municipality's non-decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a quarry operation.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day merit hearing to commence on May 6, 2024.

The moving parties requested an adjournment of the merit hearing because the applicant circulated a revised proposal shortly before the hearing, allegedly in violation of the procedural order.

The Tribunal denied the motion for an adjournment, finding that any prejudice to the moving parties was mitigated by delaying the start of the hearing by three days and revising the exchange and filing dates, which the parties had largely agreed upon.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Cheong Family Holdings Ltd. regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed 29-storey building at 69 Yorkville Avenue in Toronto.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, procedural deadlines, and the consolidated issues list for the 13-day hearing scheduled to commence in December 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the city's denial of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities, agreed to separate the Site Plan Application appeal onto an administrative track, and scheduled a 13-day hearing for December 2024.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's decision regarding a minor variance application for an eight-storey mixed-use building.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal previously approved the variances in principle.

The Tribunal reviewed a revised list of variances based on the City's interpretation of the zoning by-law and, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, found that the amended variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The Tribunal considered a motion to settle a site-specific appeal of a municipal-wide zoning by-law regulating cannabis production and processing facilities.

The Tribunal found that it could approve the site-specific settlement prior to hearing the remaining municipal-wide appeal because the settlement instrument could stand alone and would not pre-determine the outcome of the broader appeal.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the site-specific amendment represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to applicable official plans by balancing agricultural promotion with the protection of sensitive land uses.

The settlement was approved and the remaining municipal-wide appeal was scheduled for a future hearing.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a rear two-storey addition, a third-storey addition, and a detached garage.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances, and the neighbouring property owners appealed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish the prevailing building type in the immediate context and did not demonstrate how the proposal, particularly the requested floor space index, respected and reinforced the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were refused.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit 48-storey and 59-storey mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and Issues List on consent, scheduling a 10-day video hearing to commence on February 6, 2024.

The Requestors sought a review of a TLAB decision that approved a revised minor variance application for a reduced front yard setback.

The Requestors argued the presiding Member made several errors of law and jurisdiction, including failing to apply the minor variance test regarding the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, requiring a documented rationale for the by-law, and disregarding expert evidence.

The reviewing Member dismissed the review request, finding that the original Member properly considered the intent and purpose of the zoning by-law, appropriately weighed the competing expert planning evidence, and did not make any reviewable errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The original decision approving the variances was confirmed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church from the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications for a proposed 12-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal consolidated the three appeals.

Participant status was granted to one individual, and Party status was granted to the York Mills Valley Association and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.

Other status requests were either denied for failure to attend or deferred to a second Case Management Conference to allow for further discussions and potential incorporation of a homeowners' committee.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use building.

The applicant and the City reached a settlement on a revised proposal, but an adjacent property owner opposed it, citing concerns over height, angular planes, and privacy impacts.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's planning evidence, finding that the revised proposal conforms with the Official Plan, is consistent with provincial policies, and provides appropriate transition and mitigation of impacts.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement proposal.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a minor variance application and failure to make a decision on a site plan application for an 8-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a settlement with the City and an abutting neighbour.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and met the four-part test for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, authorizing the variances and approving the site plan in principle, subject to conditions.

Carmel Pharms brought a motion to separate its appeal of a zoning by-law amendment from a consolidated hearing with two other appellants, following a settlement with the Township of Oro-Medonte.

The Tribunal initially denied the motion due to concerns about fair adjudication for the remaining appellants.

After the parties collaborated to revise the draft order, the Tribunal rescinded its initial decision, granted the motion to separate the appeal, and approved the site-specific zoning by-law amendment for Carmel Pharms based on uncontested expert planning evidence.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment, the Tribunal addressed procedural matters including the status of a party and the failure of added parties to submit witness lists.

The Tribunal changed Hastad Property Management Services Inc.'s status to Participant on consent.

The Tribunal extended the deadline for the added parties to submit their witness lists but struck several of their issues from the Issues List because they did not intend to call expert evidence to support those issues.

A revised Procedural Order was issued.

The Tribunal convened a Telephone Conference Call to address a party's failure to comply with the Procedural Order in an appeal concerning a site plan control and minor variance application.

The self-represented party failed to file witness lists or exchange documents, and sought to raise issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal revoked the individual's party status due to non-compliance and converted his status to a participant, allowing him to submit a written statement.