Ian Flett

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 183 and the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for July 2023 to allow the City to finalize a revised HCD plan and for parties to scope issues.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a merits hearing, finding it premature.

A request by a new property owner to assume a withdrawn appeal was deferred, with a scheduled motion date vacated on consent of the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for an appeal under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit two 21-storey towers and a 9-storey midrise building.

The Tribunal set a 14-day hearing to commence on July 31, 2023, and established the Issues List and order of evidence.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City's refusal of a minor variance application and failure to make a decision on a site plan control application.

The parties discussed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, with the Tribunal directing the parties to finalize the issues and setting a four-day video hearing for December 2022.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 27-storey building.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, withholding the final order pending the satisfaction of servicing and Section 37 agreement conditions.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed his appeal of a zoning by-law without a hearing.

The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the basis that it did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground and failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with provincial policy or the official plan.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons and made no error of law in applying the test for dismissing an appeal without a hearing under the Planning Act.

The moving party had failed to provide responding affidavit evidence or expert planning opinions to support his appeal grounds before the Tribunal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

A second Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a 27-day hearing to commence in April 2023.

The parties were directed to finalize the Issues List and Procedural Order, and participants with common concerns were directed to submit joint statements to avoid duplication.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's zoning by-law appeal without a hearing under section 34(25) of the Planning Act, and to be added as a party.

The Tribunal granted the applicant party status on consent.

On the motion to dismiss, the Tribunal found that the appellant failed to provide an affidavit or any evidence to substantiate the reasons for the appeal, relying instead on unsworn material and the prospect of a future Case Management Conference.

The Tribunal concluded that the notice of appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the appeal could be allowed, and dismissed the appeal without a hearing.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent applications to sever the rear portions of two deep lots to create two new lots fronting onto a private laneway.

The proposed lots would require access and servicing through a municipal 0.3-metre reserve, which the City opposed.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances would create isolated lots that do not respect the existing lotting pattern, contrary to the Official Plan's neighbourhood character policies.

Given the cumulative uncertainties regarding servicing, access, and the lack of jurisdiction to compel the lifting of the municipal reserve, the Tribunal concluded the lands were not suitable for subdivision under s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

At a case management hearing for an appeal against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 59-storey mixed-use building, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to the Bay Cloverhill Community Association Inc. The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate and submit a draft procedural order and issues list by October 25, 2021.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Yonge Park Plaza Inc. for official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and site plan approval for a mixed-use development at 4050 Yonge Street.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two residents' associations, directed the appellant to clarify the site plan appeal regarding lands not owned by the appellant, and scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits for May 2022.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws to permit a 36-storey mixed-use building at the corner of Wellesley Street East and Church Street.

The Tribunal evaluated the proposal against the existing and planned context, including the Church Street Village Character Area and the Wellesley Wood Character Area.

While the Tribunal found the shadow impacts acceptable and the tower design mitigating, it ultimately concluded that the proposed height and massing were excessive and incompatible with the low-rise character of Church Street.

The appeals were dismissed and the requested amendments were not approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-laws to permit a 36-storey mixed-use building at the corner of Wellesley Street East and Church Street.

The site straddles two Character Areas with different planned contexts.

The applicant argued the tower's location and design mitigated impacts and fit the tall building context of Wellesley Street.

The City opposed the development, arguing the height and massing were excessive, did not respect the low-rise character of Church Street, and would cause unacceptable shadow impacts on a nearby park and damage mature trees.

The Tribunal found the shadow impacts acceptable but agreed with the City that the proposed 36-storey height and massing did not fit the existing and planned context of the area, particularly its proximity to the low-rise Church Street Village.

The appeals were dismissed.

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs of $34,377.28 on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a settlement offer.

The appellant argued he was a public interest litigant and that no costs should be ordered.

The Divisional Court found the appellant did not demonstrate he was a public interest litigant and held that costs should follow the event.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Rule 49 did not apply, and instead awarded the respondent costs of $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a Review Decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, arguing that the Tribunal erred in law by applying the 'Clergy principle' to allow the respondent's planning applications to be assessed under the policy regime in place when they were originally filed in 1990.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Clergy principle is a procedural policy choice within the Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, not a legal principle subject to appeal on a question of law.

The Court also found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

The respondent, a Quebec-based farm equipment dealer, brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's dispute under the Farm Implements Act for lack of jurisdiction.

The respondent argued it had no physical location in Ontario and relied on a choice of law clause in the contract specifying Quebec law.

The Tribunal found a real and substantial connection to Ontario because the respondent advertised, delivered, and serviced equipment in Ontario, and was registered as a dealer under the Ontario Act.

The Tribunal also found the choice of law clause unenforceable as an unfair term because it was not brought to the applicant's attention.

The motion to dismiss was denied.

The plaintiff, a farm equipment dealer, brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant manufacturer from terminating their dealership agreement.

The plaintiff intended to argue before the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal that the termination violated the Farm Implements Act, but had not yet commenced proceedings there.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that an injunction is an ancillary remedy and cannot be granted where no underlying proceeding exists.

Alternatively, the court held that the requested relief was a mandatory injunction for which the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case, and even under the lower threshold for a prohibitive injunction, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction.

The appellant distillery applied for a liquor licence for its premises and an adjoining patio.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving objections from local residents regarding past zoning and fire safety compliance, as well as concerns about noise and neighbourhood character.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found no persuasive evidence that the appellant's past conduct disentitled it to a licence or that the operation was inconsistent with the neighbourhood's character.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the licence, subject to conditions limiting the patio's capacity, restricting its hours of operation, and prohibiting amplified music.

Yongehurst Distillery Corp. brought a motion for costs against two added parties (objectors) following a successful hearing to review its liquor licence application.

Yongehurst alleged the added parties acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith by delaying proceedings, failing to comply with disclosure orders, refusing to settle, and presenting incomplete evidence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the proceedings were lengthy and caused Yongehurst financial hardship, the added parties' conduct did not rise to the level required to justify a costs award under Rule 19.1.

The appellant distributor appealed a Tribunal decision finding it had improperly terminated a dealership agreement with the respondent dealer.

The Tribunal had awarded damages and costs to the dealer.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal correctly found that Regulation 123/06 under the Farm Implements Act applied retrospectively to the agreement.

The majority held that the Tribunal's findings regarding the interpretation of the agreement and the unreasonableness of the distributor's refusal to renew were questions of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal.

However, the Court unanimously set aside the Tribunal's award of damages for obsolete assets as an error of law, and quashed the costs award, remitting it to the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The Appellant applied for a liquor sales licence for a multi-purpose event and music venue known as the Matador, initially requesting a capacity of 804 persons, later reduced to 650.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to review the application after receiving numerous objections from local residents and the City of Toronto, who raised concerns about noise, traffic, and vandalism based largely on the property's history as an illegal after-hours club.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors' concerns were overly speculative and not objectively supported, given the Appellant's extensive mitigation plans regarding security, patron flow, and soundproofing.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the licence, subject to conditions including a midnight restriction on the sale and service of alcohol from Sunday through Wednesday, security cameras, and lighting.