Jeffrey Streisfield

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

The appellant residents association appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision granting minor variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey single detached house.

The requested variances related to maximum lot coverage and minimum side and rear yard setbacks.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the proposed development was compatible with the evolving character of the neighbourhood, where similar variances had been approved.

The Tribunal found the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and dismissed the appeal, authorizing the variances.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to settle the Issues and Procedural Order for Phase 2 of a hearing regarding multiple appeals of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in the Town of Richmond Hill.

The Tribunal approved the City's proposed Hearing Plan, which divided the hearing into four sub-phases, and rejected attempts by North Elgin Centre Inc. to expand the issues list to include area-wide matters such as the location of the Bernard Bus Terminal.

The Tribunal also corrected a minor omission in a previous zoning by-law amendment and dismissed a renewed motion for recusal.

The Deputy Director of Racing issued a Notice of Proposed Order to revoke the appellant's horse racing licenses, alleging he conspired to fix a race at Fraser Downs in 1999.

The appellant requested a hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Commission found the Administration's case lacked clear and cogent evidence, noting significant inconsistencies in the key witness's testimony, the failure to call the bettor as a witness, and the failure to produce the race videotapes.

The Commission quashed and set aside the Notice of Proposed Order.

The Deputy Director of Racing issued a Notice of Proposed Order to Revoke the owner, trainer, and driver's licenses of the respondent on the grounds that he was involved in fixing a horse race in British Columbia.

The respondent requested a hearing before the Ontario Racing Commission.

The Commission determined that it had the jurisdiction to substitute its opinion for that of the Director, but that denial of a license should be based on clear and cogent evidence.

The majority of the Commission found the testimony of a co-conspirator credible despite inconsistencies, and confirmed the proposed order to revoke the licenses.

One commissioner dissented, finding the evidence lacked the necessary clarity and cogency.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Racing Industry Board of Appeal that rescinded the Judges' decision to place the horse DELCREST LAVEC from first to second for a passing lane violation.

The majority of the Ontario Racing Commission found that DELCREST LAVEC progressively occupied the extended inside lane, denying access to the trailing horse WHITESAND TITAN, which was in contention.

The Commission allowed the appeal, rescinded the Board of Appeal's decision, and restored the Judges' original order of finish.