27 total
Late party status request granted on consent; hearing in writing scheduled to consider settlement.
At a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed 60-storey mixed-use development at 295 Jarvis Street, the Tribunal considered a late request for party status from a tenant of the subject property.
Given extenuating circumstances and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the tenant party status.
The Tribunal also scheduled a hearing in writing to consider a settlement agreement reached between the parties.
Procedural order issued for rescheduled hearing on zoning and subdivision appeals.
The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the rescheduled hearing of appeals by the applicant concerning the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.
The applications seek to permit a development of 43 single detached dwellings and an apartment building.
The hearing was rescheduled to commence on September 11, 2024, for a duration of three days.
Tribunal grants party status to TCHC and approves procedural order for 60-storey development appeal.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by 295 Jarvis LP against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 60-storey mixed-use building.
On consent, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List for the upcoming hearing.
Procedural order issued for an appeal regarding a proposed subdivision and zoning by-law amendment.
The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 10-day video hearing regarding appeals by Snowy Owl Woods Holdings Inc. (Mistral Development Inc.) against the Municipality of Port Hope for its failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.
The applications propose a development of 43 single detached dwellings and a block for a 10 to 21-unit apartment building.
The Order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates leading up to the hearing scheduled to commence on June 3, 2024.
Tribunal grants participant status and schedules hearing dates in subdivision appeal.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the Municipality of Port Hope's refusal to approve a draft plan of subdivision and implementing zoning by-law.
The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals on consent, scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 30, 2023, and set a ten-day hearing commencing June 3, 2024.
Tribunal approves Lindsay Secondary Plan modifications but withholds order until former plan is formally repealed.
The City of Kawartha Lakes brought a motion for partial approval of Phase 4 appeals concerning Official Plan Amendments 13 and 16, which implement the Lindsay Secondary Plan.
The parties reached a settlement on the proposed policy and mapping modifications.
The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the modifications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represent good planning.
To avoid potential policy conflicts between the new Secondary Plan and the existing Town of Lindsay Official Plan, the Tribunal ordered that its final approval be withheld until the Minister formally repeals the existing plan.
Leave to appeal OMB decision denied; Board's interpretation of employment area conversion requirements was reasonable.
The City of Toronto sought leave to appeal a decision of the Vice-Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board, which refused to order a rehearing of a decision granting approval for a mixed-use development on lands designated as 'Employment Areas'.
The City argued the Board erred in law by allowing the conversion without a municipal comprehensive review, contrary to the Growth Plan.
The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board's interpretation—that the lands were not within 'Employment Districts' and thus not subject to the conversion protection—was reasonable and consistent with the City's own by-laws.