James B. Davidson

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment for a proposed mixed-use residential development at 280 Commissioners Street.

The Tribunal granted party status on consent to four entities: 115 Saulter South LP, Toronto Port Authority, PT Studios Inc., and Atura Power.

The Tribunal directed the appellant to file a final draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 19-day video hearing for April and May 2027.

The City of Toronto appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances for a proposed mixed-use development at 1306-1310 The Queensway.

The parties reached a settlement that maintained the approved variances but added a condition requiring the applicant to make a $126,291 cash contribution for local capital improvements.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Toronto Local Appeal Body found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal to implement the settlement condition.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 69-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the parties' draft Procedural Order and scheduled an eight-day video hearing to commence in June 2025.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 53-unit mixed-use development consisting of stacked townhouses and commercial space.

The parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 and in compliance with section 41 of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the site plan subject to agreed-upon conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 789 Don Mills Developments Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications.

The parties requested a fourth CMC to allow time for City Council to consider a potential settlement offer.

The Tribunal granted the request, scheduling a fourth CMC for January 28, 2025, and ordered that a related Ontario Heritage Act appeal be carried forward administratively.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 38-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised 52-storey mixed-use building with 579 dwelling units, including affordable housing.

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

The appeal was allowed in part, and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle, subject to the fulfillment of several conditions.

The plaintiff initiated a claim following a car accident.

The defendant, Traveler's Insurance Company, subsequently brought a motion for summary judgment, which proceeded on an uncontested basis as the plaintiff failed to respond.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim against Traveler's, finding no duty of care owed, a valid full and final release, and that the action was brought in the wrong jurisdiction.

The court also validated service of the motion materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan, Zoning By-law, and Site Plan applications for a multi-phased development.

The parties advised that active settlement discussions were underway, including regarding a related heritage appeal.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference to provide a status update on settlement discussions and set a 10-day hearing on the merits in the event a settlement is not reached.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 525 and related Zoning By-law Amendments for the King-Parliament area.

The Tribunal addressed several administrative matters, including the splitting, consolidation, and withdrawal of various site-specific appeals.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal adjourned the scheduled merit hearing sine die to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development consisting of two residential towers.

The parties reached a settlement, which included retaining an existing rental apartment building and providing a daycare.

The Tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the zoning by-law amendments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 789 Don Mills Developments Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to Donmeg Developments Limited and participant status to Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation 2818 on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for November 15, 2023, to allow the City time to review revised plans and obtain instructions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing variances to permit a second-storey addition and a new rear deck.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant and the City of Toronto reached a settlement based on a revised proposal with reduced variances.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part and the revised variances were authorized subject to conditions.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion to set aside a noting in default, the successful responding parties sought their costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding parties, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from the general rule under Rule 57.03 that the successful party on a motion is entitled to costs payable forthwith.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside a noting in default and to strike an affidavit she had previously sworn.

The underlying action arose from an ATV accident where the moving party was the driver and the plaintiff was a passenger.

The moving party had previously sworn an affidavit claiming ownership of the ATV, leading to the dismissal of the action against her common-law spouse.

After the plaintiff's claim was settled by the insurers, they sought subrogation against the moving party, who then claimed she had lied about owning the ATV to protect her spouse's assets.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default, finding that doing so would cause substantial prejudice to the innocent insurers who had relied on her representations.

The request to strike the affidavit was also dismissed as moot and inappropriate for a preliminary motion.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

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

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellants brought a motion seeking approval of site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 144 to facilitate mixed-use developments on St. Clair Avenue West.

The modifications updated compatibility and mitigation study requirements for residential uses near existing meat processing plants.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence and the settlement reached with the City of Toronto, the Tribunal approved the modifications.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 45-storey residential tower.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Diocese and the Clinic on consent.

The parties expressed interest in Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal directed the preparation of a revised draft Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference, declining to set a 25-day hearing on the merits at this stage.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use building.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that included revisions to the building's massing, stepbacks, and unit mix, as well as a Section 37 contribution for affordable housing.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with two tall buildings at 10-30 Dawes Road.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal reviewed the agreed-upon conditions of approval and the land use planning affidavit filed by the applicant.

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 Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the conditions are satisfied.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a seven-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the by-law amendments and required studies.