L. Pinder

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to facilitate a mixed-use development with three towers and 1,754 dwelling units.

The parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policy, aligns with the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of several conditions, including securing affordable housing and addressing airport flight path restrictions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed three-tower development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Port Authority on consent.

The parties anticipate pursuing mediation, and a nine-day merit hearing was scheduled for January 2026.

The City of Toronto brought a motion on consent for an order bringing into force the unappealed portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 (OPA 409) and Zoning By-law 702-2024, which relate to the redevelopment of Villiers Island in the Port Lands.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities and approved a minor modification to OPA 409 to address concerns raised by LaFarge Canada Inc. regarding its adjacent cement terminal.

The Tribunal ordered that the unappealed sections of OPA 409 came into force on July 30, 2024, and established a procedural order for the hearing of the remaining site-specific and precinct-wide appeals by the Toronto Port Authority.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed two-storey single-family dwelling.

The subject land is identified as having natural heritage significance.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Participant status to a local residents' association.

A revised Procedural Order was approved, and a 15-day video hearing was scheduled for July 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control Approval for a proposed 49-storey mixed-use building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 19-day video hearing to commence in October 2024.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development at 309 Cherry Street.

The applicant requested a further CMC in June 2024 to allow time to review the outcomes of the City's ongoing review of the Port Lands Official Plan, which may necessitate changes to the proposed zoning or an Official Plan Amendment.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled a further CMC.

The applicant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying 11 minor variances for a proposed three-storey dwelling and attached two-storey garage/cabana.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, which included significant below-grade connections between the main dwelling and the cabana, represented an overdevelopment of the lot.

The Tribunal held that the requested variances for floor space index, building length, building depth, and building height did not respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood and failed to meet the four statutory tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications for two properties in the Indian Point area of Burlington.

The applications sought to sever a portion of one lot to add to the other, and then subdivide the enlarged lot into three parcels, requiring variances for lot area, front yard setbacks, and frontage.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposals were consistent with provincial policy, conformed to the applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed and the applications granted subject to conditions.