Maggie Cheung-Madar

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 8111 Kennedy Markham Inc. for the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted participant status to four community associations on consent.

A Telephone Conference Call and a 10-day merit hearing were scheduled.

The appellant brought a motion for directions regarding appeals of a heritage designation by-law under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The City admitted it failed to serve the requisite Notice of Intention to designate the property on one of the owners and the Ontario Heritage Trust.

The appellant sought to have the appeals allowed, the by-law repealed, and costs awarded prior to a hearing.

The Tribunal found that while the City acted without authority by failing to fulfill the legislative prerequisite of notice, the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the OHA requires a hearing on the merits before it can repeal or amend a heritage by-law.

The motion was dismissed, costs were denied, and the parties were directed to confer on next steps.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by CF/OT Buttonville Properties Inc. against the City of Markham's refusal of applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to 60 Renfrew and participant status to Phil Stewart on consent.

A seven-day merit hearing was scheduled for June 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit a reduced combined interior side yard setback and an increased roof projection for a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on revised plans and conditions.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, being consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and maintaining the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

This decision arises from the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 55-storey residential tower.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian National Railway Company and Curated North Inc. on consent.

Participant status was granted to two adjacent landowners/residents, but denied to a third individual who failed to provide sufficient information or attend the conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a 12-day merit hearing and a one-day motion hearing, and directed the filing of a finalized Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's refusal to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 13-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 11-storey residential building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the York Region and City of Markham Official Plans, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a high-rise mixed-use development.

Following revisions to the proposal, the parties reached a settlement for a development featuring two towers (49 and 46 storeys) on a shared podium, containing 873 purpose-built rental units.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal aligns with the emerging vision for transit-oriented development along the Yonge Corridor and represents good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to permit a rear addition containing two suites to an existing heritage dwelling.

The proposed variances were for building depth and rear yard setback.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, represented gentle intensification, and was designed to protect the heritage integrity of the main residence.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's expert witnesses over the respondent's experts, noting that the proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Official Plan.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a high-rise mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement in principle, revising the tower heights to 50 and 47 storeys and adding a holding provision for a wind study to address an adjacent property owner's concerns.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning, allowing the appeals in part on an interim basis pending finalization of the instruments.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to facilitate a mixed-use high-rise development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for two towers of 36 and 41 storeys.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final orders withheld pending the submission of final instruments and a Transportation Demand Management agreement.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Newdev Investments Ltd. and 1375920 Ontario Limited against the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan approval.

The applications seek to permit the construction of two 3-storey stacked townhouse blocks.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two neighbours and approved the Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 5-day merit hearing scheduled for October 2025.

The appellant appealed under s. 69(3) of the Planning Act seeking a reduction in application fees paid for a draft Plan of Subdivision.

The appellant paid over $3.2 million in fees between 2016 and 2024 and sought a refund of approximately $1.5 million, arguing the fees exceeded the municipality's anticipated costs.

The Tribunal found that the Engineering Review Fee was unreasonably based on an outdated, higher construction cost estimate and ordered a refund of $638,668.56.

The Tribunal also ordered a refund of $113,991.10 for Landscape Review Fees that were improperly charged under the 2024 Tariff.

However, the Tribunal found the remaining residual fees were reasonable and connected to the municipality's costs for processing the complex application.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit an addition containing two suites.

A neighbour, whose property shares a rear lot line and is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, brought a motion requesting party status and an adjournment of the merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the neighbour had a direct interest in the matter and that granting party status was fair and without prejudice.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing, directed the scheduling of a new four-day hearing, and ordered the parties to prepare a Procedural Order with an Issues List.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal under the Ontario Heritage Act against a by-law designating a property in the City of Markham.

The parties indicated that planning applications are being prepared and hope to resolve the heritage issues through that process.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing for February 2026 and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use development with two 40-storey residential buildings.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached and requested additional time to finalize the materials.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and established procedural dates for the exchange of revised application materials and settlement documents.

The appellants appealed the City of Markham's passing of a heritage designation by-law for their property.

At the second Case Management Conference, the City admitted it failed to serve one of the co-owners with a notice of intent to designate as required by s. 29(3) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit written motion materials to determine the appropriate relief arising from the City's non-compliance.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision dated January 15, 2025.

The amendment replaced Paragraph 66 to accurately reflect the evidence of a witness regarding the provision of affordable housing and the absence of a policy mandating it on a site-specific basis.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a high-density residential development.

The City opposed the development, raising concerns about shadow impacts on adjacent parklands, park grading, the lack of affordable housing, and the adequacy of the unit mix.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the shadow impacts were minimal, the park grading was acceptable, and there was no statutory or policy requirement to mandate affordable housing on a site-specific basis.

The Tribunal also found the proposed unit mix to be adequate and transit-supportive.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal against the City of Markham's heritage designation of a property, the parties disagreed on the issues list for the draft Procedural Order.

The appellants included procedural and substantive issues, while the City argued only its listed issues were relevant.

The Tribunal directed the appellants to file a motion to scope the issues and scheduled a hearing for the motion alongside the next Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the city's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The parties requested an adjournment to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, converted the hearing to a Case Management Conference, and approved a Procedural Order scheduling a five-day merit hearing for April 2025.