Kim A. Mullin

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.

This was a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals under the Planning Act for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Mondelez Canada Inc. and Cosmetica Investments Inc., and participant status to the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and ordered that a further Case Management Conference be scheduled.

The plaintiff, Frank Miele, a failed mayoral candidate, brought a lawsuit alleging corruption and fraud against the entire municipal council and mayor of Vaughan, seeking $210 million in damages and disqualification from office.

Miele later admitted his allegations were baseless and apologized.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, totaling over $1.2 million.

The court rejected Miele's arguments for reduced costs, finding his testimony inconsistent and his claims of lack of understanding incredible given his extensive municipal finance background.

The court ruled that bringing a meritless lawsuit is an abuse of process, not public interest litigation, and ordered Miele to pay substantial indemnity costs to the defendants, including $813,101.99 to the City of Vaughan.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of minor variances to permit a 10-storey residential building with 98 units.

The variances sought relief for building height, parking rates, and corner visibility triangles.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that the proposed transit-supportive development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by Fowler Construction Company Ltd. regarding the Township of Ramara's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry.

The order sets out the hearing dates, issues list, order of evidence, and filing deadlines for witness statements and expert reports.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order for a 25-day video hearing regarding appeals by Fowler Construction Company Ltd. against the Township of Ramara's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The amendments are sought to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry area.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, the issues list, and the procedural requirements for the parties, including the exchange of expert witness statements and visual evidence.

The appellants appealed the Town of Newmarket's refusal to adopt a Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit the severance of two existing residential lots into three lots for single detached dwellings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the proposed reductions in minimum lot area and frontage represented appropriate 'gentle intensification' consistent with provincial and regional policies.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for increased maximum lot coverage, finding that the proposed 34% coverage on smaller lots would be an overdevelopment incompatible with the planned built form context of the stable residential neighbourhood.

An interim order was issued pending finalization of the zoning by-law amendment and provisional consent.

The applicant sought consent to sever a surplus farmhouse dwelling from an agricultural parcel.

The dwelling had been demolished due to severe tenant hoarding and safety issues prior to the application.

The local Committee of Adjustment approved the severance, and a neighbouring farmer appealed, arguing that because the dwelling was demolished, it could not meet the strict policy definition of a 'habitable' surplus residence under the Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and approved the consent, finding that a strict literal interpretation of the policy would frustrate its intent, which is to protect agricultural lands.

The severance maintained the agricultural use of the retained parcel and the rural residential character of the severed parcel.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Approval to permit a 28-unit cluster dwelling development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement regarding the Zoning By-Law Amendment.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The Tribunal approved the amendment but withheld its final order pending the site's exemption from an Interim Control By-law related to water servicing capacity, and adjourned the site plan appeal sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for appeals by the applicant regarding the municipality's refusal to amend its Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The amendments are sought to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry area.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence for a 25-day video hearing scheduled to commence in February 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

The Tribunal granted party status to three non-appellant entities, subject to their sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal noted that the parties have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation and found it premature to require the preparation of an Issues List until mediation is completed.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2021.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

Three non-appellant entities were granted party status on consent, subject to the requirement that they shelter under issues raised by existing appellants.

The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed to enter Tribunal-led mediation to scope issues and find common ground.

The Tribunal found it premature to require the parties to finalize an Issues List before the conclusion of mediation, but ordered the City to submit a draft Issues List prior to the next CMC.

A second CMC was scheduled for October 2021.

The appellants appealed the Town of Newmarket's refusal of an application to amend a zoning by-law to permit three detached dwellings.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned a previously scheduled hearing and issued a revised procedural order.

The Tribunal ordered that a two-day video hearing be rescheduled to commence on October 14, 2021.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the respondent's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The applications seek to permit the expansion of an existing licensed quarry.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for July 2021 and a 25-day hearing for February 2022.

A pre-hearing conference was held regarding appeals of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's refusal of a development permit application and a related plan amendment application by the Township of Clearview.

The Hearing Officer addressed the impact of the upcoming Ontario Land Tribunal Act on participant and presenter status.

The Hearing Officer also resolved disagreements between the parties regarding the draft Procedural Order, specifically concerning the scheduling of an evening session and the wording of several items on the Consolidated Issues List.

The moving party sought an extension of time to review interlocutory rulings and a costs order made by a judge who had previously denied their motion for leave to appeal a Land Planning Appeal Tribunal decision regarding a new hospital site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the interlocutory rulings merged with the final decision denying leave, rendering them moot.

The court held that the proposed review was an abuse of process attempting to collaterally attack a final decision, and that the costs order was well within the motions judge's discretion.

The moving party, a residents association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that dismissed its appeals against the City of Windsor's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments facilitated the location of a new regional acute care hospital.

The moving party argued the LPAT erred in law regarding emergency services policies, First Nations consultation, climate change impacts, and the assessment of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's decision on any question of law.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay partial indemnity costs, despite recognizing it as a public interest litigant, because the motion lacked merit and it would be unfair to shift the costs to the municipal taxpayers and the hospital.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that upheld a zoning by-law amendment permitting a Supervised Consumption Facility.

The applicants argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding the amendment conformed to the 1989 Official Plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding the proposed appeal raised a question of mixed fact and law, there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, and the issue was not of sufficient general or public importance.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums.