Ira Kagan

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an expanded A&W take-out restaurant with a drive-through as an accessory use to an existing gas station, and to reduce a landscape buffer.

The City argued the restaurant's size and operational independence made it a principal use requiring zoning amendments.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's planning evidence, finding the restaurant remained subordinate in scale and function to the gas bar.

The Tribunal held the variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, granting the necessary variances without conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit an A&W take-out restaurant with a drive-through as an accessory use to an existing gas station, and to reduce landscape buffers.

The City argued the restaurant was a principal use due to its size and operational independence.

The Tribunal found the restaurant remained an accessory use, noting it occupied only 25% of the kiosk area and did not dominate the primary gas bar function.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding the variances met the four-part test under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good planning without the need for conditions.

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 first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for November 17, 2026, and a 14-day hearing on the merits for January 2027.

The parties were directed to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on an official plan amendment application.

The parties disputed the inclusion of a note in the Draft Procedural Order that would require parties raising technical issues to call expert evidence.

The Tribunal agreed with the added parties that the note was inappropriate, as the Rules of Practice and Procedure do not mandate calling an expert witness to support an issue, and parties may rely on cross-examination.

The note was removed, and a 14-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for four distinct appeals relating to proposed expansions of the Fergus Urban Centre boundary in the Township of Centre Wellington.

The parties agreed to a phased hearing approach, with Phase 1 addressing overarching population forecasts and land needs assessments, and Phase 2 addressing site-specific issues.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together for Phase 1 and granted party status to several requesting entities, including the appellants in each other's appeals, adjacent landowners, and the local school board.

A 14-day hearing was scheduled for Phase 1.

The appellant brought a motion for directions to prohibit the City of Hamilton from seeking an alternative position at the upcoming Phase 2 merit hearing.

The City's alternative position was that if the Tribunal approved an urban boundary expansion, the subject lands should be designated for employment uses rather than residential uses.

The Tribunal found that the approved Issues List did not capture an intent to present employment land needs evidence or support the alternative position.

The motion was granted, prohibiting the City from leading such evidence or seeking the alternative position at the Phase 2 hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use high-density residential and retail/commercial development.

The Tribunal scheduled a six-week video hearing and directed the parties to file a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to increase the permitted number of residential units on the subject lands from 93 to 327.

The City argued the application should be evaluated under the older, more restrictive Official Plan in effect when the application was filed, relying on the Clergy Principle, and requested a Holding provision for municipal servicing.

The Tribunal found the Clergy Principle inapplicable as the City's new Official Plan and Zoning By-law supported the proposed built-form.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and approved the amendment without a Holding provision, finding that servicing could be adequately addressed through the Site Plan Control process.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 10-storey residential apartment building.

The City argued the proposal represented overdevelopment and lacked appropriate transition.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellants' experts, finding the proposal represented appropriate intensification within a Protected Major Transit Station Area, provided a suitable transition to the adjacent low-rise neighbourhood, and conformed to the applicable provincial and municipal planning frameworks.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, pending finalization of the instruments and a holding provision for servicing capacity.

The City of Brampton brought a motion for directions seeking approval of modifications to its new Official Plan to resolve multiple appeals.

The Tribunal found that the proposed modifications and unmodified policies had regard for matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Greenbelt Plan and the Region of Peel Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion, approving the modifications and unmodified policies without prejudice to the remaining outstanding appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on an official plan amendment application for a mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 26 individuals and party status to adjacent neighbours.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to review the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Centre Wellington and the County of Wellington to make decisions regarding applications for Official Plan Amendments to permit a settlement area boundary expansion.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal consolidated the two appeals on consent.

The Tribunal also granted participant status to the Upper Grand District School Board and a local resident, while deferring several party status requests to a future Case Management Conference to allow for further discussions among the parties.

The applicant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Town opposed the development, arguing it was incompatible with the small-scale Main Street character and failed to conform to the Urban Structure.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development conforms to the Regional and Town Official Plans, is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, and achieves compatibility with the surrounding area through appropriate urban design, setbacks, and stepbacks.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its Final Order pending the finalization of the zoning instruments.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on planning applications.

The parties had previously settled most issues, leaving only the zoning by-law amendment for the Northeast Medium Density Block unresolved.

Due to a lack of response from the municipality following mediation, the applicant requested a merit hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a memorandum of oral decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision and order dated November 14, 2025.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the reference number for OLT Case No. OLT-24-001191 was corrected from 25T-202204 to 25T-202205.

In all other respects, the previous decision remains unchanged.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a zoning by-law amendment for a 43-storey mixed-use building, the parties disputed the dates to be included in the Procedural Order.

The applicant and the municipality agreed on a schedule, but an added party condominium corporation proposed alternative dates.

The Tribunal found that the dates proposed by the statutory parties would not prejudice the added party and would allow for a fair and expeditious resolution.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order with the statutory parties' dates.

The Appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a high-density mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Peel District School Board without objection.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a Procedural Order and scoped Issues List.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under s. 22(6.2) of the Planning Act to determine whether its Official Plan Amendment application should be deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

The City had issued notices of incomplete application citing various outstanding studies and reports, including an archaeological assessment, karst assessment, and approved terms of reference for environmental studies.

The Tribunal found that the City's grounds for deeming the application incomplete were insufficient, as many of the requested items were either not prescribed by the Act, not required by the Official Plan, or had been adequately addressed by the applicant's submissions.

The motion was granted and the application was deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to establish a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) for the redevelopment of the Centrepoint Mall site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement on a Revised SASP that will guide the future mixed-use redevelopment of the site, including new public streets, a central park, and high-density residential and commercial uses near a planned subway station.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the Revised SASP consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, and allowed the appeal in part to approve the policy.