Jeffrey E. Streisfield

The City of Richmond Hill adopted Comprehensive Zoning By-law 30-25 but later discovered notice deficiencies.

To protect appeal rights, the City repealed By-law 30-25 and replaced it with By-law 93-25.

At a Case Management Conference, the City requested that the Tribunal confirm the repeal of By-law 30-25 and dismiss the appeals against it as moot.

The Tribunal agreed, confirming the repeal and dismissing the appeals of By-law 30-25.

The Tribunal also provided procedural directions for the ongoing appeals of By-law 93-25, including scheduling a second Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by CF/OT Buttonville Properties Inc. against the City of Markham's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to 60 Renfrew and participant status to Phil Stewart on consent.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled for June 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant landlord appealed the dismissal of its application for a declaration that a long-term commercial lease had expired and for ancillary relief on the basis that the tenant was overholding.

The appellant argued that the tenant's failure to obtain timely Planning Act approval brought the lease to an end and precluded further renewals.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's analysis, holding that the tenant had continued to take appropriate steps to obtain the necessary approval and that the renewals were permitted subject to such approval.

Fresh evidence motions were dismissed as irrelevant to the appeal outcome, and leave to appeal the $225,000 costs award was denied.

The appellant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's refusal of consent applications to sever a property to create two new residential lots, as well as the City's Official Plan Amendment No. 22 and By-law 64-21, which expanded the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area.

The appellant argued that the property was not within the Regulatory Floodplain and that the City's floodplain mapping was flawed.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that the property is located within the Regulatory Floodplain and lacks safe access during flood events.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances were inconsistent with provincial policies protecting public safety and environmental integrity.

The Tribunal upheld OPA 22 and By-law 64-21, finding them to be grounded in sound planning principles and supported by robust technical analysis, and dismissed the appeals.

The decision concerns a dispute over the renewal of a commercial lease between McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited and North Elgin Centre Inc. McDonald’s sought to exercise its option to renew the lease for two additional 10-year terms, while North Elgin opposed the renewal, seeking to terminate the lease and redevelop the property.

The court reviewed the lease provisions, the requirements of the Planning Act, and the parties’ conduct, ultimately finding that the lease had been validly renewed for both the first and second renewal terms, subject to municipal consent.

The court dismissed North Elgin’s application to terminate the lease and granted McDonald’s a declaration of renewal, ordering North Elgin to refrain from further communications that would undermine the consent process.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit an addition containing two suites.

A neighbour, whose property shares a rear lot line and is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, brought a motion requesting party status and an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the neighbour had a direct interest in the matter and that granting party status was fair and without prejudice.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing, directed the scheduling of a new four-day hearing, and ordered the parties to prepare a Procedural Order with an Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a video hearing event for an appeal under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act.

The appeal concerns a minor variance application to permit an addition containing two suites at 86 John Street in Markham.

The Tribunal established the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the upcoming four-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 14, 2025.

The municipality brought a motion during a Case Management Conference requesting that the uncontested portions of its new comprehensive zoning by-law be deemed to have come into force pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act.

Several appellants had filed appeals regarding specific properties.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal granted the motion in part, bringing the by-law into force for all areas except those lands specifically subject to the ongoing appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the city for failing to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The applications propose a 39-storey mixed-use tower.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to six other individuals and organizations.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to review the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant, Carolyn Liddy, brought a motion under Rule 30.10 for production of documents from a non-party lawyer, Jeffrey Streisfield, her former counsel in an underlying negligence action.

The documents sought included files received from previous counsel, work product, and invoices, which were deemed relevant to the current action concerning legal costs incurred to "repair" previous work.

Streisfield asserted a lawyer's lien over the documents due to unpaid accounts.

The court found that Liddy failed to establish that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without the documents, as her inability to obtain them appeared to stem from her unwillingness to pay Streisfield's outstanding account, and she had not brought a necessary motion under Rule 15.03(4) to determine the lien's existence and terms.

The motion for production was dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding consolidated appeals by the appellant concerning an Official Plan Amendment, a Zoning By-law, and consent applications for a property in Richmond Hill.

The Tribunal set a 10-day video hearing on the merits to commence in February 2024 and approved the Procedural Order to govern the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment that would permit a six-unit residential dwelling within an existing former motel building on a shoreline property.

The property was zoned Shoreline Residential, which permits only single detached dwellings.

The Tribunal found that the proposed multiple-unit residential use on rural lands outside a settlement area was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Township's planner, concluding that the proposal did not conform to the 'limited residential' policies of the County Official Plan or the waterfront policies of the Township Official Plan.

The appeal was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a contempt motion brought by McDonald's against North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC), and NEC's cross-motion for declaratory relief.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

NEC, as the successful party, sought substantial indemnity costs of $153,368.

McDonald's argued for $15,000.

The court found NEC substantially successful but awarded partial indemnity costs of $37,000, significantly reducing the amount claimed.

The reduction was based on the unreasonableness of NEC's claimed hours, the failure to delegate work to lower-cost timekeepers, and the fact that McDonald's prepared most of the voluminous record.

The court also found NEC's offer to settle did not comply with Rule 49 and thus did not attract substantial indemnity cost consequences.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a refused Zoning By-law Amendment application, the parties disagreed on whether the requirement for an Official Plan Amendment should be a separate threshold issue on the Issues List.

The Tribunal determined that the necessity of an Official Plan Amendment would be addressed through the adjudication of official plan conformity and directed the parties to remove it as a separate issue.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a three-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct technical and typographical errors in a previous decision dated August 23, 2022.

The corrections clarified the nature of the appellant's appeals under the Planning Act and the role of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding Special Policy Area establishment.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit six dwelling units within an existing detached dwelling.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to five local residents.

As the parties were unable to agree on an Issues List, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference to identify the issues and set hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Robert Salna against the City of Richmond Hill's proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 22 and the Regional Municipality of York's failure to announce a decision on the proposed new Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority but denied it to a neighbouring property owner.

The Tribunal issued procedural directions for the parties to define issues and determine if a threshold motion is required before scheduling a hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Unionville Ratepayers Association and participant status to two individuals.

The parties requested a second CMC to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for August 11, 2022.

Following a two-phase hearing regarding the Yonge & Bernard Key Development Area Secondary Plan, multiple parties brought motions for costs against North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC).

The moving parties alleged that NEC's counsel engaged in unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious conduct, including refusing to scope issues, failing to call evidence after indicating an intention to do so, conducting improper cross-examinations, and repeatedly ignoring Tribunal directions.

The Tribunal agreed, finding NEC's conduct to be reprehensible and outrageous.

Costs were awarded to the moving parties on a full indemnity basis, totaling $202,890.63.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard Phase 2 of appeals regarding the Yonge and Bernard Key Development Area (KDA) Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law in the City of Richmond Hill.

The hearing focused on site-specific development applications and policies for the eastern quadrants and the Di Pede lands in the northwest quadrant.

The Tribunal approved the City's proposed modifications, which were supported by expert planning, transportation, and environmental evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the Greenway System designation and natural hazard buffer requirements for the northeast quadrant, dismissing the appeals of North Elgin Centre Inc. (NEC), which failed to call any evidence.

All other appeals were dismissed, bringing the Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law into effect for the remaining lands.