Carlton Thorne

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed high-rise development, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to two condominium corporations representing adjacent residents, and participant status to two nearby residents.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Norfolk Development Inc. against the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to facilitate a 15-story development containing 344 units.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on July 13, 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's by-law designating a property as being of cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The parties reached a settlement and presented proposed amendments to the by-law at a settlement hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert heritage planning evidence, the Tribunal found the property met the prescribed criteria for designation and that the proposed amendments were appropriate.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's refusal of consent applications to sever a property to create two new residential lots, as well as the City's Official Plan Amendment No. 22 and By-law 64-21, which expanded the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area.

The appellant argued that the property was not within the Regulatory Floodplain and that the City's floodplain mapping was flawed.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that the property is located within the Regulatory Floodplain and lacks safe access during flood events.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances were inconsistent with provincial policies protecting public safety and environmental integrity.

The Tribunal upheld OPA 22 and By-law 64-21, finding them to be grounded in sound planning principles and supported by robust technical analysis, and dismissed the appeals.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever a residential lot and associated minor variances.

The applicant sought to create a new lot and retain the existing dwelling.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance failed to satisfy the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, primarily because the Official Plan required such severances to proceed via a Zoning By-law Amendment rather than a minor variance application.

Consequently, the Tribunal also found that the requested variances failed the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appellants appealed a municipal by-law designating their property as having cultural heritage value or interest under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The City presented expert heritage planning evidence demonstrating the property met four criteria under O.Reg 9/06, including design value as a Picturesque Gothic Revival home and historical association with an early settler family.

The self-represented appellants challenged the historical and architectural findings using secondary research.

The Tribunal preferred the City's expert evidence, found the property met the required criteria for designation, and dismissed the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a City of Richmond Hill by-law designating a property as having cultural heritage value under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The parties reported that productive settlement discussions were underway.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to either consider a proposed settlement or set hearing dates and finalize a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of a by-law designating a property as having cultural heritage value.

The appellant's representative requested time to obtain instructions, as the appellant was out of the country.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for October 2025 to assess next steps, including the potential finalization of a procedural order and scheduling of a merits hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a seven-day merit hearing to commence by video on April 13, 2026.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6.

Several appellants withdrew their appeals.

The remaining appellants, Harry and Pamela Harakh, consented to scoping their appeal to specific lands.

The Tribunal ordered that OPA 18.6 comes into effect, except for the policies and schedules applying to the scoped lands, and scheduled a motion hearing regarding jurisdiction.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding site-specific appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 18.8 for the Oak Ridges Local Centre in the City of Richmond Hill.

The Tribunal scheduled two separate five-day hearings for the appeals and issued the corresponding Procedural Orders.

The Tribunal also acknowledged that OPA 18.8 is in force and effect on a plan-wide basis, save for the site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding site-specific appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 18.8 for the Oak Ridges Local Centre in the City of Richmond Hill.

The appellants confirmed their appeals were scoped to their individual properties.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the unappealed portions of OPA 18.8 came into force pursuant to s. 17(39) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing for the Streamgrove and Worthington appeals to be heard together, and a separate five-day hearing for the Yonge and Bloomington appeal, issuing procedural orders for both.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.5.

The appellants confirmed their appeals were scoped on a site-specific basis to 9218 Yonge Street and 9251 Yonge Street.

The Tribunal ordered that OPA 18.5 is in force and effect on a plan-wide basis, save and except for the two site-specific addresses, pursuant to subsection 17(39) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also approved a Draft Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming merit hearing.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 41 (Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan).

The parties advised that one appeal was subject to a pending settlement and the other was subject to ongoing applications that could resolve the appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the appeals sine die and directed the parties to provide a status update by December 1, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6.

The Tribunal scheduled a subsequent Case Management Conference for February 27, 2025, and ordered the parties to submit a final draft Procedural Order, Issues List, and a draft Order relating to the OPA by December 16, 2024.

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit three infill dwellings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included protecting an existing woodland by rezoning a portion of the property to Open Space.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement and proposed amendment consistent with provincial policies and municipal official plans, representing good planning in the public interest.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

The moving parties sought an order directing the Region of York to re-issue a notice of decision regarding an Official Plan Amendment, arguing the original notice sent via email to their planning consultant's former employee was defective.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Region fulfilled its obligations under s. 17(35) of the Planning Act and O. Reg. 543/06 by sending the notice via email to the individual who had submitted the written request for notice on behalf of the consulting firm.

The Tribunal held that the legislation permits email service and does not require the approval authority to confirm receipt or provide notice to parties who participated in the public process but did not submit a written request.

The applicant appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment that approved minor variances for accessory structures and a reduced front yard setback, but imposed a condition requiring the gratuitous conveyance of land for a road widening.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, relying on established case law, the Tribunal held that the road widening condition was inappropriate because it lacked a reasonable relationship to the requested variances.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized without the road widening condition.

The appellants appealed the passing of an Official Plan Amendment and the failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment regarding a proposed development.

The developer and a residents' association jointly advocated for a 28-storey apartment building, while the municipality supported a 25-storey building.

The Tribunal found that both proposals were policy-supported, but preferred the 28-storey proposal as it better optimized existing infrastructure and transit investments in the Protected Major Transit Station Area.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the amendments for the 28-storey proposal were approved in principle.

The applicant appealed the City's Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to facilitate a five-storey mixed-use building.

The requested variances included reductions in setbacks, parking, and loading spaces, and increases in floor area ratio.

The City did not call any witnesses.

Relying on the uncontradicted expert planning and traffic engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances satisfied the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.