14 total
Tribunal grants CN party status to shelter under appellant's issues in development appeal.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. against the City of Vaughan's approval of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendments for a high-rise mixed-use development.
The appeals raised concerns about noise, vibration, and traffic impacts on the adjacent UPS facility.
Canadian National Railway Company requested party status due to the development's proximity to its MacMillan Rail Yard.
The Tribunal granted CN party status, directing that it must shelter under the issues raised by UPS.
A second CMC and a 13-day merit hearing were scheduled.
Procedural order issued establishing timelines and issues list for a 12-day hearing on development appeals.
The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make decisions on requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.
The amendments seek to permit the development of two towers, 42 and 45 storeys in height.
The order establishes the procedural rules, timelines, and issues list for a 12-day video hearing scheduled to commence on July 2, 2024.
Settlement approving official plan and zoning amendments for a residential development and stormwater facility granted.
The applicants appealed the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.
The amendments were intended to facilitate the development of two apartment buildings with up to 193 units and a municipal stormwater management pond.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a comprehensive settlement.
Based on uncontested expert planning and engineering evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendments, as modified by the settlement, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.
The appeals were allowed in part to approve the modified amendments.
Tribunal grants party status and schedules 14-day merit hearing for brownfield redevelopment appeal.
The appellants appealed the City of Guelph's failure to make a decision on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and draft plan of subdivision to permit the redevelopment of a brownfield site.
At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Canadian National Railway Company and a local residents' association, and participant status to a local resident.
The Tribunal also directed the parties to finalize an Issues List and Procedural Order, and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing.
Party status granted to CN Railway and 12-day hearing scheduled for mixed-use development appeal.
This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a mixed-use development.
The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian National Railway Company on consent.
A 12-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on July 2, 2024, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order.
Tribunal grants party status and schedules 12-day hearing for 60-storey development appeal.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first 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.
The Tribunal granted party status to Infrastructure Ontario and The Hospital for Sick Children, and participant status to a local resident.
A 12-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for May 2024.
Tribunal schedules 25-day hearing and directs finalization of Procedural Order for planning appeals.
The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment and an Official Plan Amendment for properties in the City of Cambridge.
The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 25-day video hearing to commence in March 2024.
Appeals allowed in part to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for mixed-use development.
The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3000-unit mixed-use community redevelopment.
The parties reached a full settlement.
The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good planning.
The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended planning instruments.
Tribunal approves 5-storey mixed-use development in Grimsby, subject to revised setbacks and commercial floor area.
The applicant appealed the Town of Grimsby's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a 5-storey mixed-use building.
The proposal included retaining and repurposing an existing heritage house on the site.
The Town opposed the intensity of the development, arguing it was an overdevelopment for a Neighbourhood Commercial designation.
The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed infill development was appropriate and compatible with the heritage structure and surrounding neighbourhood, but directed specific modifications to the building setbacks and commercial floor area requirements.
Appeal allowed in part to approve a settled zoning by-law amendment for shoreline residential lots.
The applicants appealed the Township's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment application intended to facilitate the creation of three new shoreline residential lots.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.
Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the proposed amendment, which includes mitigation measures to protect wetlands and deer wintering habitat, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Township's Official Plan.
The appeal was allowed in part to approve the amended zoning by-law.
Procedural order dates amended on consent of the parties.
The Tribunal issued an order on consent of the parties to amend several dates in the Procedural Order for appeals concerning a proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit the development of two 5-storey apartment buildings.
Tribunal issues procedural order and schedules hearing for appeals of official plan and zoning amendments.
The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 1571145 Ontario Limited and Jim Graham against the approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment by the County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Middlesex Centre.
The amendments would facilitate the development of two 5-storey apartment buildings.
The Tribunal directed that the appeals be heard together rather than consolidated, scheduled a five-day video hearing, and approved a Procedural Order and Issues List.
Party and participant status granted and further Case Management Conference ordered in development appeal.
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.
Motion to enforce settlement granted; responding party barred from withdrawing prior consent to dismiss crossclaim.
The moving defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the responding defendant and to dismiss the action and crossclaims against her.
The underlying action arose from a multi-vehicle collision where the moving defendant's vehicle was struck after the initial impact between the other defendants' vehicles.
The responding defendant had previously agreed to dismiss her crossclaim against the moving defendant without costs but later attempted to withdraw her consent.
The court found that a clear and unequivocal settlement agreement had been reached and that the responding defendant failed to show any valid reason to resile from it.
The motion was granted, the settlement was enforced, and the action against the moving defendant was dismissed.
