Matthew Helfand

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions to settle several appeals regarding site-specific modifications to Official Plan Amendment 59.

The settlements proposed expanding settlement area boundaries and converting employment lands to residential and commercial uses.

Sifton Properties Limited contested the settlements, arguing that a quantitative land needs assessment was required under the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 prior to approval.

The Tribunal found that the PPS 2024 removed the requirement for a municipal comprehensive review for boundary expansions, allowing for incremental expansions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them consistent with the PPS 2024, in conformity with the County Official Plan, and supportive of providing local housing options.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 21-storey residential building.

The City and TRCA brought a joint motion to strike certain witness statement evidence, which was granted in part.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and conformed to the applicable York Region Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft OPA and ZBA in principle, subject to a holding provision requiring a finalized Tree Removal, Compensation and Restoration Mitigation Plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for a 21-storey apartment building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals on consent, scheduled a five-day video hearing, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to dismiss an appeal of a city-wide zoning by-law filed by Rymal Road Apartments Hamilton Ltd. The City argued that the appellant had no right of appeal under s. 34(19)2.2 of the Planning Act because the by-law did not modify the zoning of the appellant's lands, and therefore did not 'apply' to them.

The appellant argued that the by-law applied because its lands were shown on the by-law's schedules.

The Tribunal applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that a zoning by-law only applies to land where it identifies the zoning applicable to that land.

The Tribunal held that the legislative intent of Bill 185 was to restrict third-party appeals, and adopting the appellant's broad interpretation would undermine this purpose.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance to permit an increased driveway width.

The variance was sought to accommodate a third parking space required for two proposed additional residential units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variance, finding that the amended application was minor and that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and represented good planning.

The Municipality of Middlesex Centre and the County of Middlesex brought a motion for directions regarding a settlement motion concerning appeals of an Official Plan Amendment.

While the Consensus Parties suggested the motion proceed in writing due to the highly nuanced nature of the arguments, the responding party preferred an in-person hearing.

The Tribunal found that the submissions would be highly nuanced and ordered the settlement motion to proceed in writing, setting a schedule for the exchange of materials.

The appellant sought site plan approval for a self-storage facility.

The City of Ottawa demanded the free conveyance of a six-metre-wide corridor for a future pathway as a condition of approval, relying on the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 (OPAA) and its Official Plan policies.

The Tribunal found that neither the Planning Act nor the OPAA provided the clear statutory language required to authorize the taking of land without compensation.

The Tribunal held that the OPAA did not create a new general official plan conformity test for site plan approvals.

The appeal was allowed and the site plan was approved without the conveyance condition.

The County of Middlesex and the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc brought a joint scoping motion under s. 17(50) of the Planning Act to approve the non-contentious portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 14 (OPA-14) and bring them into force.

The appellant consented to scoping its appeal to specific policies and schedules.

Relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that bringing the non-contentious portions into force represents good planning, reduces unnecessary site-specific applications, and is consistent with provincial policies.

The motion was granted, and the non-contentious portions of OPA-14 were deemed in full force and effect.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton Committee of Adjustment's denial of a minor variance application to increase maximum driveway width for two proposed additional residential units.

Following a section 23 review, the matter was scheduled for a case management conference.

The Tribunal scheduled a de novo oral re-hearing for January 28, 2026, allowing the appellant to submit new evidence.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 14-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner, consolidated the appeals, and scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision that allowed the withdrawal of a draft plan of subdivision appeal by a neighboring developer.

The applicant argued that the withdrawal, which occurred on the eve of the hearing, breached its right to procedural fairness by preventing it from arguing for a cost-sharing condition.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, finding that the issue of procedural fairness is a question of law that should be addressed through the statutory appeal mechanism requiring leave under the Ontario Land Tribunal Act.

In the alternative, the court found no breach of procedural fairness, as the withdrawal of the appeal was expressly contemplated by the Planning Act and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to compel private parties to enter into a cost-sharing agreement.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and its refusal or neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of a two-storey Buddhist temple.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal with increased parking and a redesigned building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, York Region Official Plan, and local planning documents.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments approved.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to adjourn the Phase 2B Hearing regarding appeals by the appellant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The City argued that there was insufficient time to prepare for the scheduled January 2026 dates due to the complexity of the issues and the need for expert coordination.

The appellant consented to a short adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing to commence in February 2026.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 777 (Sheppard East Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted added party status to Lencroft Holdings Inc., allowing it to shelter under an existing appeal.

The Tribunal also granted requests to adjourn two specific appeals while those appellants pursue site-specific applications.

Procedural dates were established for the exchange of materials ahead of Tribunal-led mediation and a third Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's decision to amend its zoning by-law to permit a 10-storey mixed-use building, seeking instead approval for a 16-storey building.

The Tribunal found that the 16-storey proposal constitutes an appropriate 'tall mid-rise' building given the site's proximity to a major transit station area.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence that the proposal fits the existing and planned context, adequately limits shadow impacts on the public realm, and provides acceptable transition to adjacent neighbourhoods.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the proposed zoning by-law amendment for the 16-storey building was approved in principle.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the procedures leading up to a three-day hearing scheduled to commence on November 12, 2025.

The hearing concerns an appeal by the applicants regarding the respondent municipality's refusal or neglect to make a decision on an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit a contractor's business.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a two-storey place of worship.

Following a productive Tribunal-led mediation, the parties requested additional hearing dates to allow for continued mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day hearing, which may be converted to a settlement hearing if a resolution is reached, and directed the filing of a revised Procedural Order.

A case management conference was held to schedule the Phase 2A and Phase 2B hearings regarding appeals for a proposed 21-storey residential development in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day Phase 2A hearing to address natural heritage and hazard land issues, and a 10-day Phase 2B hearing for remaining planning issues.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

The Applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a two-storey place of worship.

During the hearing, the Applicant sought to cross-examine a Town witness on a newly revised draft zoning by-law and introduce it as reply evidence.

The Tribunal denied these requests, finding they would cause procedural unfairness and prejudice to the Town, as the original draft had already been supported by the Applicant's experts in their case-in-chief.

Subsequently, the parties jointly requested an adjournment to pursue Tribunal-led mediation, which the Tribunal granted, scheduling a future Case Management Conference.