Jonathan Samuel Cheng

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 13-storey mixed-use building.

At this Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Thompson Orchard Community Association and participant status to the Sunnylea Kingsway Community Association and a group of 47 households.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day hearing on the merits and a further status teleconference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant sought a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from operating a parking lot near the airport, arguing it violated the City of Toronto's zoning by-law.

The respondents argued they had a consent order from the City allowing the operation and that they were operating a permitted 'Vehicle Depot'.

The court found that the consent order related only to licensing, not zoning, and that the operation did not meet the definition of a 'Vehicle Depot'.

The court granted the statutory injunction, finding a clear breach of the zoning by-law.

The applicant sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from operating a parking lot, alleging a violation of a zoning by-law.

The respondents claimed a valid appeal against the Citywide By-law with the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, which would allow them to continue operating under the previous zoning.

The court found that the validity of the appeal and the respondents' standing were matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, not the Superior Court.

Consequently, the court declined to grant the injunction and adjourned the application sine die, allowing the applicant to pursue remedies before the Tribunal.

The Regional Municipality of Halton appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision that overturned its new development charges by-law.

The new by-law eliminated distinctions between unit sizes, which the Board found resulted in smaller units unfairly subsidizing larger ones.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board reasonably applied the Development Charges Act and had sufficient evidence to find cross-subsidization.

The Board's decision to reinstate the former by-law's categories was a reasonable exercise of its remedial authority.