Ira Todd Kagan

The applicant sought costs against a self-represented party and the Region of Peel following a hearing on the merits of an official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeal.

The applicant argued both parties maintained issues on the Issues List but failed to call expert evidence.

The Tribunal denied costs against the self-represented party, finding she acted in good faith and made reasonable efforts.

However, the Tribunal awarded $5,000 in costs against the Region of Peel, finding its deliberate failure to comply with the procedural order and late abandonment of issues constituted unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct.

The applicants and the City of Vaughan brought motions for costs against the appellants, Humberplex Developments Inc. and Friends to Conserve Kleinburg Inc., following the dismissal of their appeals regarding Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48.

The costs motions primarily related to a motion to strike brought by the appellants, which sought to exclude expert planning evidence based on hearsay and innuendo regarding alleged bias and improper influence.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' conduct in bringing the motion to strike was unreasonable and warranted an award of costs.

The Tribunal awarded $35,000 in costs to the applicants and $20,000 to the City, payable primarily by Humberplex.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the 2010 Vaughan Official Plan and related site-specific development applications.

The Tribunal granted revisions to the Procedural Order for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan hearing, deferring its start by one week to allow experts to review recently circulated transportation studies and development plans.

The Tribunal also granted Party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on Appeal 166.

Finally, the Tribunal allowed a settlement motion by the City of Vaughan, approving modifications to the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Secondary Plan for a specific site, finding the modifications represented good planning and satisfied statutory requirements.

The appellants appealed the Town of Ajax's approval of a zoning by-law amendment.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, a Ministerial Zoning Order was issued for the subject lands.

The parties requested an adjournment sine die to allow time to determine if the appeals would be withdrawn or a settlement reached, given the new MZO.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment on consent.

Romandale Farms Ltd. brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding an official plan amendment for the Angus Glen Block.

Romandale argued the hearing should be delayed until the completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, potential permitting under the Endangered Species Act, and ongoing judicial review litigation concerning the proposed collector road network.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the necessity for approvals under other legislation is not a basis to adjourn a Planning Act hearing, and that an official plan amendment does not constitute an authorization to proceed with an undertaking under the Environmental Assessment Act.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to rezone a property from residential to light industrial for warehousing and cold storage.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended zoning by-law.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit a 70-unit townhouse development on a former tannery site.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed instruments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard Phase 2 of appeals regarding the Yonge and Bernard Key Development Area (KDA) Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law in the City of Richmond Hill.

The hearing focused on site-specific development applications and policies for the eastern quadrants and the Di Pede lands in the northwest quadrant.

The Tribunal approved the City's proposed modifications, which were supported by expert planning, transportation, and environmental evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the Greenway System designation and natural hazard buffer requirements for the northeast quadrant, dismissing the appeals of North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC), which failed to call any evidence.

All other appeals were dismissed, bringing the Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law into effect for the remaining lands.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 14-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring business concerned with compatibility.

The Tribunal scheduled a seven-day hearing and directed the parties to finalize a procedural order and issues list following an anticipated direction report from City council.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent of the parties to govern the upcoming 10-day video hearing regarding appeals of the Town of Ajax's Zoning By-law No. Z2/19.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a mixed-use development at 2400-2444 Yonge Street.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal featuring 27-storey and 21-storey residential towers, a commercial podium incorporating heritage facades, and a new public park.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the planning instruments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of conditions imposed by City Council.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to establish a secondary plan.

A party requested that the scheduling of a hearing be deferred due to alleged jurisdictional issues related to an incomplete environmental assessment and ongoing litigation.

The Tribunal found that the party must bring a formal written motion to determine the jurisdictional issue.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing on the merits and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

This was the first Case Management Conference for an appeal by the applicant regarding the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to establish a secondary plan.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several entities and individuals.

Due to ongoing court proceedings and the recent circulation of updated documents, the Tribunal deferred the finalization of the Issues List and the scheduling of the hearing on the merits to a second Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 39-storey residential tower and a new church at 40-44 Broadway Avenue.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontroverted expert planning evidence supporting the revised proposal.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The Requestors sought a review of a prior Tribunal decision granting minor variances and provisional consent to the Applicant, alleging they did not receive notice of the appeals or the hearing.

The Tribunal directed the Requestors to file motion materials to substantiate their claims.

Despite multiple notices and extensions, the Requestors failed to file the required materials and did not attend the scheduled video hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for review due to non-compliance, leaving the original decision in force.

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit the development of high-density mixed-use towers and townhouse units.

The City opposed the applications, raising concerns regarding building heights, urban design, shadow impacts, and the location of proposed parkland.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the revised proposals were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal accepted the applicants' expert evidence that the proposed developments promote efficient, transit-supportive land use and provide an appropriate range of housing options.

The final orders were withheld pending the finalization of the by-laws, a Section 37 agreement, and other conditions.

The appellant, TransCanada PipeLines Limited, appealed the City of Vaughan's Official Plan Amendment No. 50 (Block 41 Secondary Plan) to ensure its natural gas compressor station operations were protected from potential impacts of new development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented modifications to the OPA, including policies specific to noise influence and low frequency sound.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modifications represented good planning, were consistent with provincial policies, and approved the OPA as modified.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the legislated timeline.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeal with a related official plan amendment appeal.

Party status was granted on consent to the Toronto District School Board, a residents' association, and an adjacent landowner.

The Tribunal approved a procedural order and issues list to govern the scheduled 12-day video hearing.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's adoption of Official Plan Amendments 47 and 48, which redesignate lands for the residential redevelopment of a golf course, part of which is within the Greenbelt Plan boundary.

The appellants argued the amendments were premature and raised concerns regarding need, stormwater management, compatibility, and transportation.

The Tribunal found that the phased planning approach was appropriate and that the amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conformed to the Growth Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, the Region's Official Plan, and the City's Official Plan.

The appeals were dismissed and the amendments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to settle the Issues and Procedural Order for Phase 2 of a hearing regarding multiple appeals of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Tribunal approved the City's proposed Hearing Plan, which divided the hearing into four sub-phases, and rejected attempts by North Elgin Centre Inc. to expand the issues list to include area-wide matters such as the location of the Bernard Bus Terminal.

The Tribunal also corrected a minor omission in a previous zoning by-law amendment and dismissed a renewed motion for recusal.