Katarzyna Sliwa

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 7, 2024.

The amendment corrected the overall height of the proposed 91-storey mixed-use building from 338.3 m to 328.4 m.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion at a Case Management Conference seeking to resolve several site-specific appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved site-specific amendments for properties owned by Dufferin Vistas Ltd., Condor Properties Ltd., and Armland Management Inc. The Tribunal also provided directions for other appeals to be considered at future Case Management Conferences and acknowledged the withdrawal of certain appeals.

At a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed 60-storey mixed-use development at 295 Jarvis Street, the Tribunal considered a late request for party status from a tenant of the subject property.

Given extenuating circumstances and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the tenant party status.

The Tribunal also scheduled a hearing in writing to consider a settlement agreement reached between the parties.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an eight-storey residential building with ground-floor retail.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled a five-day merit hearing and directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to increase the permitted height of a mixed-use building from 85 to 94 storeys.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit a 91-storey building.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan, noting it would provide additional housing and serve as a landmark without creating unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amendments were approved in principle.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the rescheduled hearing of appeals by the applicant concerning the failure of the municipality to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a development of 43 single detached dwellings and an apartment building.

The hearing was rescheduled to commence on September 11, 2024, for a duration of three days.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 536 (OPA 536), which relates to development within the area of influence of rail facilities.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement and requested the Tribunal approve a modified version of OPA 536.

The Tribunal found that the modifications maintain the intent to address public safety concerns arising from derailments, provide greater certainty regarding the 30-metre area of influence, and clarify requirements for rail safety mitigation reports.

The Tribunal approved the modified OPA 536, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The City of Toronto brought a request for directions before the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical or typographical error in the Appearances section of its previous decision issued on April 18, 2024.

The decision was amended to accurately reflect the counsel who appeared for the parties.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development with 524 units.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which includes relocating a heritage building, providing a midblock connection, and dedicating parkland, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the amending instruments and the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision, the Ontario Land Tribunal approved a draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing for February 2025.

Additionally, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority was removed as a party on consent, as it had reached an agreement with the applicant on conditions of approval.

The appellant appealed the Town of Aurora's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 13-storey residential development.

The Tribunal found that while the site is appropriate for intensification, a 13-storey building would be excessive and conflict with the planned context.

The Tribunal approved the redesignation to Medium-High Density Residential but limited the maximum building height to 7 storeys, requiring a transition to lower-density townhouses.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's request for a reduced parking standard but agreed that a Holding provision for servicing was unnecessary.

The appeals were allowed in part.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to adjourn sine die the site-specific appeal of Del Boca Vista Properties Inc. regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 573.

The appellant consented to the adjournment on the proposed terms, which would allow its site-specific development application process to unfold and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

The Tribunal granted the motion and adjourned the appeal sine die subject to the agreed terms.

The appellant appealed the City'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 based on a revised 18-storey proposal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning and acoustic evidence that the revised ZBA is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the new City Official Plan, and adequately mitigates noise from the nearby railway.

The Tribunal dismissed the OPA appeal as moot and allowed the ZBA appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The Canadian National Railway Company appealed the Town of Aylmer's approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near a railway line, citing concerns about safety, noise, and vibration.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and proposed a revised Zoning By-law Amendment that included a 15-metre rear yard depth to address the railway's concerns.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with provincial and local planning policies and allowed the appeal in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the upcoming hearing regarding Magnum General Contracting Inc.'s appeals for an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 78-unit townhouse development in the Township of Scugog.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, and the issues list.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Milton's Official Plan Amendment No. 54, which introduces the Trafalgar Secondary Plan.

The appellants and the Town reached a proposed settlement that resolves all issues on the Issues List, and discussions with the Regional Municipality of Halton were ongoing.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order with a scoped Issues List and a written update on whether a contested hearing would still be required.

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the township's failure to make decisions on site plan control and draft plan of subdivision applications for a 78-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the region and participant status to the conservation authority.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for September 23, 2024, to allow the parties time to further discussions and await the outcome of related Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by 295 Jarvis LP against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 60-storey mixed-use building.

On consent, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List for the upcoming hearing.

The appellants appealed the Region of Halton's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 54 (the Trafalgar Secondary Plan) to the Town of Milton Official Plan.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding approximately 61 policies, leaving 16 policies unresolved.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the resolved policies were consistent with provincial policy and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, modifying and approving the resolved policies while withholding approval on the unresolved policies.