Jamie Cole

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by the applicant regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit the development of five residential apartment buildings with heights ranging from 12 to 30 storeys.

The order establishes the issues list, procedural dates, and a 20-day hearing scheduled to commence on September 9, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the development of stacked townhouses on a former school site.

The City argued the proposal did not conform to the Official Plan's requirement to respect and reinforce the existing neighbourhood character.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the site, as a former institutional use, qualified for infill development exceptions under the Official Plan.

The Tribunal accepted expert evidence that the proposed density, built-form, and height were contextually appropriate and supported by technical studies.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a revised Procedural Order for an appeal by Greenline Renovations Plus Ltd. concerning the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appeal relates to a proposed development of two midrise mixed-use buildings at 65-81 McCormack Street.

The revised Procedural Order replaces the previous order issued on November 28, 2024, and sets out the revised dates and procedures leading up to the video hearing scheduled to commence on November 18, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to approve a site plan application for a six-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a proposed settlement and sought the Tribunal's approval.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the application and proposed conditions satisfied the legislative tests under the City of Toronto Act and were consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the site plan in principle, withholding the final order until all pre-approval conditions were satisfied.

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 five residential apartment buildings.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Long Branch Neighbourhood Association, but denied it to We Agree Mediation.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to 131 individuals and entities, and scheduled a 20-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to receive status updates on multiple remaining appeals against the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on various site-specific and topic-specific appeals, noted several withdrawals and ongoing settlement discussions, and scheduled a further case management conference for May 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a revised Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by Greenline Renovations Plus Ltd. concerning the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment for the property at 65-81 McCormack Street.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on June 16, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and refusal to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal with reduced height and density.

The Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, representing good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development at 2500 Don Mills Road.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal featuring two towers of 49 and 44 storeys, 1,196 residential units, and a new public park.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the instruments in principle, withholding its final order until the City confirms several conditions are satisfied.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing a minor variance application.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant withdrew the appeal.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal as abandoned, confirming the Committee of Adjustment's decision as final and binding.

At a Case Management Conference, the City of Toronto requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing regarding an official plan and zoning by-law amendment for 2500 Don Mills Road.

The City argued that the Applicant's late submission of revised plans prejudiced its ability to prepare.

The Applicant subsequently withdrew the revised plans and reverted to the original plans.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding no procedural fairness issue given the withdrawal, but released the first week of the hearing and adjusted the procedural order dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a decision issued on July 22, 2024.

The amendment clarified the upcoming hearing event information regarding a Case Management Conference and a Merit Hearing scheduled for November 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The City provided status updates on Phase 3, 4, and 7 appeals, as well as various topic-specific and site-specific appeals, noting several withdrawals and ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal ordered a further Case Management Conference for November 2024 and scheduled a three-day merit hearing for a specific site appeal.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion at a Case Management Conference seeking to resolve several site-specific appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved site-specific amendments for properties owned by Dufferin Vistas Ltd., Condor Properties Ltd., and Armland Management Inc. The Tribunal also provided directions for other appeals to be considered at future Case Management Conferences and acknowledged the withdrawal of certain appeals.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use development at 181-191 Eglinton Avenue East.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of 52-storey and 20-storey towers.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement 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 appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for an appeal by Greenline Renovations Plus Ltd. against the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The proposed development involves two midrise mixed-use buildings at 65-81 McCormack Street.

The order sets out the hearing dates, procedural deadlines, and the final Issues List.

The appellant appealed a non-decision of the Committee of Adjustment regarding 11 minor variances required to facilitate a six-storey mixed-use building at 8 De Grassi Street.

The proposed development includes 15 residential units and a commercial unit at grade, located near a planned subway station.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances meet the four tests under the Planning Act, being consistent with provincial policies promoting transit-supportive intensification.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to a condition regarding street tree planting.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Guelph's new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, related Official Plan updates, and residential parking requirements.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal consolidated the Parking By-law Appeal with the Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment appeals.

The Tribunal also scheduled a settlement hearing for April 23, 2024, to address settlements reached with several appellants, and a third Case Management Conference for June 25, 2024.

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.

The City of Guelph brought a motion for directions seeking partial approval of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law, save and except for certain sections under appeal.

The City also sought to scope the appeals of Industrial Equities Guelph Corporation and Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. to site-specific or area-specific appeals.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the notices of appeal for both respondents only provided reasons related to specific properties and did not justify city-wide appeals.

The Tribunal deemed the unappealed portions of the By-law to be in full force and effect and ordered the respondents to scope their appeals accordingly.