J. Hoffman

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to facilitate a mixed-use development with three towers and 1,754 dwelling units.

The parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policy, aligns with the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including securing affordable housing and addressing airport flight path restrictions.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying minor variances for a residential property.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a settlement with the opposing neighbour, resulting in a reduction of the requested variances from nine to six.

The Tribunal found the amendments to the application were minor and did not require further notice.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of four minor variances intended to permit the construction of a garden suite above an existing detached garage.

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

The Toronto Local Appeal Body acknowledged the withdrawal, vacated the hearing, and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Hamilton's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment that would facilitate an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to one group of landowners and participant status to 24 individuals and groups.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing date until the parties submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a City of Toronto by-law designating the Kensington Market Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal granted a request to substitute HSRE-Parallax 1, LP as an appellant in place of BRL Realty Limited due to a transfer of land ownership.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for June 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed three-tower development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Port Authority on consent.

The parties anticipate pursuing mediation, and a nine-day merit hearing was scheduled for January 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications for a 45-storey residential building.

The Tribunal scheduled an eight-day merit hearing to commence on October 16, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment applications for two adjacent properties to permit 38-storey and 12-storey residential buildings.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a combined development of 881 dwelling units, including rental replacement units and affordable housing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval for a 45-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner and participant status to nearby property owners on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for April 30, 2024, to allow the City to obtain instructions following its next Council meeting.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) concerning the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications, as well as an appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 90.

The Tribunal granted Party status to Promenade Limited Partnership, the future owner of the subject property.

The parties requested and the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for March 2024 to allow time for ongoing settlement discussions and the closing of the property purchase.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by The R.W. Bloor Street Development Corporation against the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a 94-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to Mizrahi Development Group (The One) Inc. and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2208 on consent.

A 10-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for June 2024, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was finalized.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 525 and related Zoning By-law Amendments for the King-Parliament area.

The Tribunal addressed several administrative matters, including the splitting, consolidation, and withdrawal of various site-specific appeals.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal adjourned the scheduled merit hearing sine die to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a high-density mixed-use development.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant entered into an agreement to sell the subject property to a newly added party.

Consequently, the Tribunal converted the hearing into a Case Management Conference, released the scheduled hearing dates, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to allow the new purchaser and the City to engage in settlement discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 35-storey mixed-use building in Toronto.

The appeal was brought due to the City's failure to make a decision within the legislated timeframe.

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

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision upholding the constitutionality of Bill 66, which amended the Labour Relations Act to deem municipalities as non-construction employers.

The union argued this violated section 2(d) of the Charter by nullifying their collective agreements and subcontracting protections.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board correctly applied binding precedent and that the amendments did not substantially interfere with the right to a meaningful process of collective bargaining.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 9-storey mixed-use development and a 4-storey rental replacement building.

The parties reached a settlement, which was supported by uncontested expert planning evidence.

The Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the approval of a rental housing demolition application.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in a previous decision.

The amendment corrected the hearing start date, confirming that the hearing would commence on February 6, 2023, and approved the revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide specific land use planning policy references in their Issues List and declined to create a common interest class for parties with similar issues.

A 15-day video hearing was scheduled for October 2023, and the parties were ordered to submit a revised draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal heard motions regarding appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

Sheltering parties Castandgrey and Country sought to refuse the appellants' partial withdrawal of appeals, arguing the entire Elfrida Area should remain under consideration for urban expansion.

The Tribunal allowed the motions in part, ruling that while it would not refuse the scoping of issues, the full Elfrida Area potential urban boundary remains under appeal and the Ministry's modifications for non-appellant lands are not in force.

A separate motion by LIV Developments Ltd. for party status was denied as it did not advance the public interest and would result in a multiplicity of proceedings.