J. Dexter

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding 14 active appeals to the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 777 (Sheppard East Secondary Plan).

The City requested the scheduling of a fourth CMC and a three-week merit hearing for March 2027.

The Tribunal established procedural deadlines and scheduled the fourth CMC for September 2026, but declined to schedule the merit hearing at this stage due to ongoing mediation, pending City Council instructions, and the lack of finalized issues lists and procedural orders.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed two-tower residential development.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement involving revised building heights, setbacks, and parkland dedication.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good planning, supports transit-oriented intensification, and is consistent with provincial and municipal policies.

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

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 19-storey mixed-use development.

Following an interim decision that found a 31-storey height too tall but left open the possibility of a lower height, the parties engaged in unsuccessful mediation.

At a case management conference, the applicant requested a hearing continuation to determine the appropriate height, while the City requested the appeals be dismissed.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's request, finding that a narrowly-scoped hearing continuation focused solely on height and stepbacks offered the best opportunity for a fair, expeditious, and cost-effective resolution.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 777 (Sheppard East Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted added party status to Lencroft Holdings Inc., allowing it to shelter under an existing appeal.

The Tribunal also granted requests to adjourn two specific appeals while those appellants pursue site-specific applications.

Procedural dates were established for the exchange of materials ahead of Tribunal-led mediation and a third Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 31-storey mixed-use building at 444-466 Eglinton Avenue West.

The site is currently designated for 8-storey mid-rise buildings.

The Tribunal found that while the proposal was well-designed and transit-supportive, a 31-storey building failed to fit the planned context and height transition of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in principle but issued an interim order keeping the file open for six months to allow the parties to negotiate a resolution, particularly in light of the City's recently adopted Official Plan Amendment 778.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 777 (Sheppard East Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted Added Party status to the Toronto Lands Corporation, finding it is a public body that meets the statutory requirements under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also granted Participant status to the Sheppard Avenue East Community Group on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consider mediation and set a schedule for finalizing the Issues List ahead of the next Case Management Conference.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 35 and 39-storey residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status on consent to an adjacent developer and two neighbouring property owners, and participant status to supportive property owners across the street.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day merit hearing for February 2026 and directed the parties to finalize a procedural order and issues list.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances for a residential addition.

Prior to the hearing, all parties consented to allowing the appeal without prejudice to future applications.

As no evidence was heard, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and overturned the variances on consent, noting that res judicata would not apply to future applications.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Pem (Eglinton) GP Inc. for non-decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications to permit a mixed-use development in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to two individuals/groups.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were approved, and dates were set for a second Case Management Conference and a 14-day merit hearing.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting consent to sever a residential property to create two undersized lots for a semi-detached dwelling.

The City argued the proposal failed to respect the prevailing lot pattern under Official Plan Policy 4.1.5.

The owner argued the property was unique and should be evaluated under the infill criteria of Policy 4.1.9.

The Tribunal agreed with the owner, finding the property's size and shape were distinct from the neighbourhood and the proposed development would fit the existing physical character.

The appeal was dismissed and the consent was upheld.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal determine that the servicing conditions imposed on a previously granted provisional consent had been fulfilled, allowing for the issuance of a certificate of consent.

The conditions required a Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of the City's engineering department.

The City refused to clear the conditions, citing deficiencies in the proposed lateral connections and separation widths in the narrow public lane.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicant's engineering evidence on feasibility was credible, the City had not approved the servicing arrangements, and the Tribunal lacked the authority to deem the conditions satisfied or to determine the City's statutory duty regarding servicing.

The Applicant brought a motion to adjourn the hearing of an appeal regarding a consent to sever and minor variances.

The adjournment was requested due to the late discovery of an explanatory memorandum prepared by the City's Urban Forestry Division, which the City intended to rely upon at the hearing.

The City consented to the adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the criteria under Rule 23.3 were satisfied and granted the motion, ordering a new hearing date and fresh disclosure deadlines.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan approval to permit a 19-storey mixed-use building.

The City and the applicant reached a settlement, which was opposed by a group of residents and a neighbouring seniors residence, Belmont House, primarily due to concerns over shadow impacts.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development adequately limits shadow impacts on Belmont House in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines, and that the settlement represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consents and minor variances to create four lots from two existing lots and construct a two-storey detached dwelling on each.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal, finding that the amended plans, which reduced the requested variances, met the statutory tests under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the reduced lot frontages and areas were consistent with the neighbourhood's character and would not cause undue adverse impacts.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Centennial Hotels Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed 71-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to Dream Office (GP) Inc., Canada Life Assurance Company, and the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association.

The parties indicated they are pursuing private mediation, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on its Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment applications within the statutory timeframe.

The applications sought to facilitate the development of residential townhouse blocks and mixed-use buildings on an underutilized site.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with provincial policies and local plans, and approved them in principle, withholding the final order pending the fulfillment of several conditions.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment denying minor variances for a proposed three-storey multi-generational home.

The central issue was a variance to permit a third storey.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's planner, finding that the proposed dwelling, which features dormers in a sloped roof, presents as a two-storey dwelling and fits the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

The Tribunal concluded that all requested variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and allowed the appeal in part to accommodate minor revisions to the proposal.

The owners of a property requested a review of a TLAB decision that refused their application for minor variances to build a new house.

The owners alleged that the TLAB member made errors of law and violated procedural fairness by relying on a site visit, referencing past committee experience, and misapplying the test for minor variances.

The reviewing member dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and concluding that the original member properly considered the evidence and applied the correct legal tests.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit the demolition of an existing house and construction of a new two-storey residential dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the requested lot coverage variance to 32 percent.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variances for lot coverage, setbacks, driveway access, and building height met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

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

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying 11 minor variances for a proposed three-storey dwelling and attached two-storey garage/cabana.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, which included significant below-grade connections between the main dwelling and the cabana, represented an overdevelopment of the lot.

The Tribunal held that the requested variances for floor space index, building length, building depth, and building height did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood and failed to meet the four statutory tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.