Joel Farber

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an upcoming 14-day video hearing regarding appeals by Ashley Heritage Joint Venture and 840966 Ontario Ltd. The appeals relate to the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a proposed plan of subdivision to permit residential and commercial development.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and key filing dates for the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the hearing of an appeal by 965 Chemong Road Investments Inc. concerning a site plan amendment application for 971 Chemong Rd in the City of Peterborough.

The appeal was filed under s. 41(12) of the Planning Act after the city council failed to make a decision within 30 days.

The order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, and procedural deadlines.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton advised that it is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review that may result in an urban boundary expansion, potentially resolving many appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 4, 2021, to allow time for the City to provide direction on the boundary expansion and for the parties to prepare an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Perth and the Municipality of North Perth.

The parties reached a compromise settlement to revise the amendments to continue permitting a mixed-use development.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and in conformity with the County Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the revised amendments.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals against Official Plan Amendment No. 324.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on March 14, 2022, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The East Beach Community Association was granted participant status on consent.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants from the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Maple Lodge Farms and participant status to a local resident.

The parties indicated they are pursuing Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled two future Case Management Conferences to update on mediation and potentially finalize a procedural order or settlement.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order regarding multiple objections to Notices of Intention to Designate various properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Several objectors withdrew their objections, leading the Board to close those files.

The remaining objectors, who had failed to participate in previous proceedings, were ordered to either withdraw their objection or provide written submissions explaining why their matter should not be dismissed.

The scheduled hearing was canceled.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate multiple properties in the Town of Aurora under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Due to the provincial emergency, the hearing was scheduled to proceed by video conference.

The previously scheduled site visit was cancelled, and the parties were directed to jointly provide photographs of the properties in lieu of a site visit.

The Conservation Review Board issued a procedural order setting the schedule and procedures for a hearing regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate multiple properties in the Town of Aurora under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The order established dates for a site visit, exchange of witness lists, expert meetings, and document disclosure.

The Board also noted that the hearing format could be altered due to the ongoing provincial emergency.

Procedural order arising from a pre-hearing conference regarding objections to Notices of Intention to Designate multiple properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Conservation Review Board consolidated the hearings, granted party and participant status, noted the failure of several property owners to attend, and set a schedule for disclosure and the finalization of an Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues List.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding multiple objections to Notices of Intention to Designate several properties under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Several property owners failed to attend the conference despite receiving proper notice.

Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Conservation Review Board ordered that it would proceed in their absence and that they are no longer entitled to further notice.

The Board also established a procedural schedule for the remaining active parties to finalize disclosure, an Agreed Statement of Facts, and an Agreed Issues List ahead of a 3-day hearing.

The Complainant appealed the City of Toronto's denial of vacant unit rebate applications for the 2008 through 2014 taxation years.

The Complainant, who held a 50-year lease for the building, argued it was the de facto owner due to its extensive rights and obligations under the lease.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the Complainant was a tenant, not an owner within the meaning of section 331 of the City of Toronto Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that the property was not an eligible property under section 38(5)(b) of Ontario Regulation 121/07 because it was leased to a tenant in possession of the leasehold interest.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding the respondents compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The appellant challenged the award of disturbance damages for pre-expropriation business losses and the Board's refusal to reduce the property's market value due to environmental contaminants.

The respondents cross-appealed the Board's refusal to award interest on the disturbance damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding that the Board correctly applied the law regarding disturbance damages and reasonably concluded that the environmental contaminants did not reduce the property's market value.

The Court also upheld the refusal to award interest on disturbance damages, as it is not provided for in the Act.

The appeal was allowed only to correct an arithmetical error in the business loss calculation.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to award a water meter supply and installation contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued the City breached procedural fairness by using undisclosed evaluation criteria, specifically a technical ratio and a 5-year evaluation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Request for Proposals granted the City broad discretion and explicitly stated selection would be based on merit and price ratio.

The court also excluded the applicant's proffered expert evidence on procurement fairness, finding it unnecessary to assist the court.