Ira Todd Kagan

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to have five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals (Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc., Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc., and Whitechurch Landowners Group Inc.) heard together.

The parties consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard at the commencement of the previously scheduled Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the first scheduled merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the hearing of five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the common issues together was appropriate to ensure consistent adjudication and efficiency without prejudicing the individual site-specific hearings.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Town opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the small-scale Main Street character and failed to conform to the Urban Structure.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development conforms to the Regional and Town Official Plans, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and achieves compatibility with the surrounding area through appropriate urban design, setbacks, and stepbacks.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its Final Order pending the finalization of the zoning instruments.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on planning applications.

The parties had previously settled most issues, leaving only the zoning by-law amendment for the Northeast Medium Density Block unresolved.

Due to a lack of response from the municipality following mediation, the applicant requested a merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a memorandum of oral decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision and order dated November 14, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the reference number for OLT Case No. OLT-24-001191 was corrected from 25T-202204 to 25T-202205.

In all other respects, the previous decision remains unchanged.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a 43-storey mixed-use building, the parties disputed the dates to be included in the Procedural Order.

The applicant and the municipality agreed on a schedule, but an added party condominium corporation proposed alternative dates.

The Tribunal found that the dates proposed by the statutory parties would not prejudice the added party and would allow for a fair and expeditious resolution.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order with the statutory parties' dates.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Appellant appealed the City of Brampton'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 high-density mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Peel District School Board without objection.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a Procedural Order and scoped Issues List.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under s. 22(6.2) of the Planning Act to determine whether its Official Plan Amendment application should be deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

The City had issued notices of incomplete application citing various outstanding studies and reports, including an archaeological assessment, karst assessment, and approved terms of reference for environmental studies.

The Tribunal found that the City's grounds for deeming the application incomplete were insufficient, as many of the requested items were either not prescribed by the Act, not required by the Official Plan, or had been adequately addressed by the applicant's submissions.

The motion was granted and the application was deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to establish a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) for the redevelopment of the Centrepoint Mall site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement on a Revised SASP that will guide the future mixed-use redevelopment of the site, including new public streets, a central park, and high-density residential and commercial uses near a planned subway station.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the Revised SASP consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, and allowed the appeal in part to approve the policy.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the appellants against the respondent municipality's new Parkland Dedication By-law.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a 10-day Merit Hearing to commence by video on July 6, 2026.

The applicants appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit two industrial buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised planning instruments consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amended planning instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a corrective order under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend a previous Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The correction fixed a typographical error in the spelling of counsel's name for Home Depot of Canada Inc. from Noah Jorden to Noah Gordon.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Friday Harbour Resort Holdings Inc. against the Town of Innisfil's failure to make a decision on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Simcoe and eleven individuals forming the Friday Harbour Focus Group, and participant status to nine individuals.

A second Case Management Conference and a 15-day Merit Hearing were scheduled.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for Major Transit Station Areas and the new City Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to 201 County Court Brampton Holdings Inc. on consent.

The parties reported progress in mediation and proposed a written settlement motion once a draft order is finalized.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2026 to address outstanding matters and potential consolidation of the appeals.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment, the Tribunal considered a request from an adjacent townhouse community to convert from Participant to Party status.

Finding that the community had a genuine interest and intended to call expert evidence, the Tribunal granted Party status.

The Tribunal also set dates for the submission of the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 14-day video hearing.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Brantford's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 11.

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and approved a procedural order.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard and approved a settlement between BSC Landco Inc. and the City regarding the property at 555 Greenwich Street.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to rezone a portion of the property from 'Core Natural' to a 'Holding - General Employment' zone, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving seven variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached house at 23 Beechwood Avenue.

The variances related to building length, depth, height, and setbacks.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal and confirmed the approval of the variances, finding that they met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, concluding that the proposed house would respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood, which includes large, irregularly shaped ravine lots, and that the variances were minor in nature with little to no negative impact on neighbours.

The appellant brought a motion for disclosure of the City's hydraulic water and wastewater models, as well as data related to airport noise contours, in the context of an appeal concerning an urban boundary expansion.

The City consented to releasing the water model but opposed releasing the wastewater model and the airport data, arguing the wastewater model was inaccurate and the airport data was not in its possession.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of both models, finding them relevant and necessary since the City intended to rely on them to some extent.

The Tribunal also ordered the City to disclose the airport data if and when it becomes available to the City, failing which neither party may rely on it at the merit hearing.