Ira Kagan

The City of Markham passed a by-law designating a 1890s farmhouse as a property of cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant appealed the designation, arguing that the property only met one of the required criteria.

The Tribunal found that while the property met the criterion for design value as a representative Gothic Revival farmhouse, it did not meet the criteria for historical or contextual value.

As a property must meet at least two criteria to be eligible for designation, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the by-law repealed.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 124-2024 and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities on consent.

The parties agreed to schedule a Motion Hearing to further scope the issues, which may lead to the resolution or withdrawal of some appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled the Motion Hearing for March 4, 2025, and a second Case Management Conference for April 30, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit an industrial warehouse development.

The Tribunal added an adjacent landowners group to the contact list, noted the parties' intent to seek Tribunal-led mediation, directed the submission of a final Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 15-day merit hearing to commence on July 7, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Guelph's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use student residence building.

The parties reached a settlement for an 11-storey building with 463 units.

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

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City's refusal of applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development featuring 30 and 35-storey towers on a waterfront property.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification and a tall building format, the proposed development represents an over-development of the property.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the City and the neighbouring hotel owner that the proposal lacked compatibility with surrounding land uses, failed to provide appropriate transitions to adjacent public parks and streets, and did not adequately address wind impacts and traffic conflicts.

The appeals were dismissed, with the Tribunal noting that substantial redesign and further technical studies are required.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Following a settlement between one appellant and the Town, the parties sought approval of minor amendments to clarify the by-law's language regarding the timing of land value assessments and the definition of development, aligning it with sections 41 and 42(6.4) of the Act.

The Tribunal approved the amendments on consent, resolving that appellant's appeal, while the appeals of the other parties remain ongoing.

The applicants appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey residential apartment building.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal granted party status to a ratepayers association and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct typographical errors in a decision issued on October 16, 2024.

The amendments included replacing an attachment, correcting the spelling of 'Brampton', and correcting the word 'sized' to 'seized'.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by two applicants due to the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Ainslie Wood Community Association.

The Tribunal also approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a twenty-day merit hearing to commence in January 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 16 appeals against the newly adopted 2023 City of Brampton Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to five requesting entities, including conservation authorities and railway companies, finding they had a direct interest.

The Tribunal deferred the issue of consolidating the appeals with a related Major Transit Station Area case to a subsequent joint CMC, and established a schedule for the appellants to provide modification letters to the City.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), Distrikt Developments, and Silwell Developments Limited against the Town of Oakville's new Parkland Dedication By-law.

The Town and BILD agreed to schedule a motion hearing to address a threshold jurisdictional issue regarding BILD's requested relief for expanded parkland credits.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion hearing for November 28, 2024, and set a timetable for the exchange of motion materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 22-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three requesters and denied it to two others who failed to file the required forms or attend.

As the parties were engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow city council time to consider a settlement proposal.

The appellants appealed the City of Richmond Hill's Community Benefits Charge By-law No. 99-22, raising concerns about the definitions of 'Value of Land' and 'Development' and the application of the charge to existing buildings and phased developments.

Following the enactment of Bill 23, which amended section 37 of the Planning Act, the parties reached a settlement and modified the By-law to conform with the new legislation.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert evidence in land economics and land use planning, finding that the modified By-law complies with the Planning Act, is consistent with provincial policies, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to amend the By-law accordingly.

The Building Industry and Land Development Association appealed the Town of Aurora's Community Benefits Charge By-law under section 37(17) of the Planning Act.

The parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law to align with changes introduced by the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (Bill 23), specifically regarding the calculation of charges for developments involving existing buildings and affordable housing units.

Supported by uncontroverted expert evidence in land economics, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments complied with the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Approval, and Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement for a 70-storey mixed-use building incorporating heritage retention.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and municipal plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 17 Ewen (Hamilton) Corp. and 2480545 Ontario Inc. from the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for two related sites.

The Tribunal ordered that the appeals be heard together due to common subject matter and shared vehicle access.

Mondelez Canada Inc. was granted party status, and a participant status request by the Ainslie Wood Community Association was deferred to the next Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a residential development consisting of single detached units, townhouses, and apartments.

The parties reached a settlement resolving most issues, deferring consideration of one medium-density block, and addressing noise classification.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, approving the instruments in principle subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit two purpose-built rental apartment buildings.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council and supported by adjacent landowners.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of the instruments and necessary easements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Markham's by-law designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The parties had already exchanged written materials and proposed a three-day hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal approved the proposed procedural order and scheduled the hearing for February 2025.

The defendants were charged with undertaking development in a wetland without a permit under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The prosecution brought a motion to preclude the defendants from challenging the TRCA's jurisdiction and the existence of a wetland, which the court dismissed as violating the presumption of innocence.

The defendants brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found a net delay of 21.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial offences.

Finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, which was exacerbated by a lack of judicial resources, the court stayed the charges.