Jessica Braun

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The application seeks to permit a 10-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a five-day hearing, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Bayview Broadway Developments Inc. from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for a 25-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals who experienced technical difficulties during the first conference.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order to govern the 14-day hearing scheduled for October 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of appeals by the applicant regarding the respondent's failure to make a decision on requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments for the property at 3377 Bayview Avenue.

The order establishes the hearing dates, procedural deadlines, list of parties and participants, and the consolidated issues list.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on its zoning by-law amendment and site plan applications for a 25-storey residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an incorporated neighbourhood group that intended to call expert evidence.

The Tribunal denied party status to a residents' association that did not intend to retain counsel or call expert witnesses, granting it participant status instead.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to a neighbouring property owner and participant status to several area residents and a condominium corporation.

A Procedural Order was approved and a 10-day hearing was scheduled.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 14-storey building.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including a Section 37 agreement.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 9-storey mixed-use residential building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to twelve residents and party status to two residents' associations.

The Tribunal also scheduled a 9-day hearing on the merits and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant applied for a liquor licence for a beauty salon and spa.

The City of Toronto filed a blanket objection to all liquor licence applications unless the applicant met certain conditions, but called no evidence specific to the appellant's application.

The Tribunal found that a municipal resolution alone, without specific evidence, is not persuasive enough to prove that issuing the licence is contrary to the public interest.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application.

The appellant applied for an additional capacity of 42 persons for its outdoor patio.

Area residents and the City of Toronto objected, citing ongoing noise issues that disrupted the peaceable enjoyment of their properties.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors met the onus of establishing that granting the additional capacity was not in the public interest, given the history of noise complaints and the patio's location in a residential neighbourhood.

The application was denied.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to review an application for a liquor sales licence due to written objections.

At the hearing, the applicant and the added party municipality agreed on conditions to attach to the licence, and the Registrar took no position.

The objectors did not attend.

The Tribunal approved the application subject to the agreed conditions, which included operating as a restaurant, noise control, and not operating as a nightclub.

The applicants sought a declaration that provisions of a site‑specific zoning by‑law prohibiting “adult entertainment establishments as defined by the Municipal Act, 2001” were vague, void for uncertainty, and discriminatory.

The court considered whether the by‑law provided a sufficiently clear delineation of prohibited conduct and whether citizens could reasonably determine when they were in breach.

The court held that the by‑law failed to define key terms such as “goods” and “designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations,” leaving merchants unable to determine compliance and granting excessive enforcement discretion.

The court further found that the by‑law could produce discriminatory outcomes by permitting identical goods in some retail settings but prohibiting them in others.

The impugned provisions were therefore declared void for uncertainty and the application for declaratory relief was granted.

On a summary judgment motion, a city employee sought dismissal of a claim alleging damages for disclosure of personal information contrary to privacy legislation.

The court held that a bare allegation of breach of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act did not disclose an independent civil cause of action absent pleaded negligence or another actionable wrong.

The court also found the defendant acted in good faith in carrying out municipal duties and therefore fell within statutory immunity under s. 391 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The action was dismissed as disclosing no cause of action and as statute barred, with costs payable to the moving party.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend and revoke the liquor licence of a nightclub after the licensee permitted three patrons to bring handguns into the premises without being searched.

One patron displayed a handgun to threaten another patron.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission Regarding Disciplinary Action.

The Board found the licensee breached section 45.2 of Ontario Regulation 719/90.

The Board ordered a 21-day suspension of the liquor licence and added numerous security and operational conditions to the licence on consent of the parties and the City of Toronto.

The applicants sought leave to appeal two Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decisions refusing an Official Plan and zoning bylaw amendment for a retail development on formerly industrial lands.

The applicants argued the OMB erred in law by applying a 1994 Official Plan policy to lands that had been redesignated as 'employment areas' under the 2002 Official Plan.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the legal correctness of the OMB's policy-based decision, which reasonably interpreted the Official Plan and assessed the impact of 'retail contagion' on surrounding lands.

At a pre-hearing teleconference regarding an application for additional licensed areas by a liquor licensee, the City of Toronto requested party status.

The licensee consented and the Registrar took no position.

The Board granted the City party status as an intervenor and rescheduled the hearing to accommodate witness availability, setting out a disclosure schedule for all parties.

The applicant applied for a liquor sales licence for a restaurant and lounge.

The City of Toronto and a local residents' association initially objected but reached a consent agreement with the applicant.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario approved the application subject to numerous conditions, including noise control measures, patio restrictions, and a prohibition on operating as a nightclub.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding a liquor licence application for Spice Route Restaurant, the City of Toronto and the King-Spadina Residents Association requested party status.

The Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario granted party status to both entities for the upcoming hearing.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of Dang Restaurant.

The hearing proceeded ex parte as the licensee did not appear.

Evidence from police officers, a city councillor, and local residents established that the premises were a hub for drug activity, prostitution, violence, and severe noise disturbances.

The Board found that the licensee repeatedly permitted intoxicated patrons, failed to maintain fire safety standards, and that the operation of the premises was contrary to the public interest.

The Board ordered the immediate revocation of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the liquor licence of Dang Restaurant, alleging violations of the Liquor Licence Act including serving intoxicated persons, permitting disorderly conduct, and failing to comply with fire safety regulations.

The hearing proceeded ex parte as the licensee did not appear.

The Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered the immediate revocation of the liquor licence.

At a pre-hearing conference regarding a proposal to revoke a liquor licence, the Board granted the City of Toronto's request for party status on consent.

The Board also granted the licensee's request for an adjournment on consent and set out a schedule for disclosure among the parties.