Max Rubin

The appellant appealed a by-law passed by the City of Vaughan designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were reviewing minutes of settlement and requested additional time to finalize an agreement.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the parties to provide a status update by June 15, 2026.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application and two minor variance applications intended to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot with reduced minimum lot area and frontage on lands designated as prime agricultural and within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The applicant sought to sever a parcel containing an accessory agricultural dwelling from the retained parcel containing the primary dwelling and agricultural operations.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance would inappropriately fragment agricultural lands and that the accessory dwelling could not be legally separated from the principal agricultural use under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Tribunal also found that the requested minor variances failed the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered appeals regarding a proposed 21-storey residential tower in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to hear an appeal against the City's Comprehensive Zoning By-law together with the current appeals.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for July 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's by-law designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the merit hearing, the parties agreed they were not ready to proceed due to outstanding jurisdictional issues and the pending preparation of a revised cultural heritage evaluation report that could lead to a settlement.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and scheduled a case management conference.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications to permit a restaurant with a drive-through.

At the second case management conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and approved the procedural order.

The parties were also directed to provide an update regarding a related heritage demolition permit application.

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

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together, granted participant status to a neighboring landowner, and scheduled further conferences to address a party status request by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and potential settlements.

A four-week merit hearing was scheduled for March 2025.

The Town of Caledon appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent for a lot addition and a minor variance for reduced lot frontage and area.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted affidavit evidence of the Town's planner, the Tribunal found that the proposed consent, subject to conditions, conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, and local official plans, and protects the Natural Heritage System.

The Tribunal allowed the variance appeal, noting the variance was no longer required, and approved the consent subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Airfield Developments Inc. and Airfield II Developments Inc. against the Town of Caledon's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The parties reported that private mediation is ongoing and requested more time to resolve or narrow the issues.

The Tribunal deferred requests for participant status from adjacent landowners and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for February 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a proposed drive-through restaurant.

The Tribunal granted participant status to eight individuals who raised concerns about traffic, lighting, and litter.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and to address a potential appeal regarding a Heritage Demolition Permit.

The applicants brought an application claiming that normal farm practices were restricted by a Town of Caledon by-law.

Following a settlement and the withdrawal of individual applicants, a dispute arose over the ownership and control of the remaining corporate applicant, Love, Logic, Compassion Farms Inc. At a pre-hearing conference, the individuals involved stated they did not wish to continue with a hearing on the merits but refused to file a formal notice of withdrawal.

The Board found the application to be abandoned and frivolous, and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A first Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Caledon HL Developments Inc. against the Town of Caledon's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments for an industrial warehouse development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and participant status to QuadReal Property Group Limited Partnership.

A procedural order was approved, and dates were set for a second Case Management Conference and a three-week merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Airfield Developments Inc. and Airfield II Developments Inc. for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment due to the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Peel and participant status to two individuals.

The parties agreed to explore mediation, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled via telephone to discuss a draft Procedural Order and potential hearing dates.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under section 22(7) of the Planning Act due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on an official plan amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The proposed amendment sought to facilitate a residential development of approximately 1,282 units.

At the first case management conference, the Tribunal granted party and participant status to several requesting entities on consent.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file a draft procedural order and scheduled a second case management conference.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding a request by the applicant to determine the value of land for a cash-in-lieu of parkland condition.

The parties agreed to a revised Issues List proposed by the Town.

The Tribunal approved the Issues List, scheduled a three-day video hearing, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The respondent father brought a motion for a temporary nesting order and a section 30 assessment regarding the parties' 9-year-old child, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The applicant mother opposed the nesting order and sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that a nesting arrangement would minimize disruption to the child pending a full assessment.

The court also ordered a section 30 assessment and dismissed the father's request for a specific contact order for the paternal grandparents under the new provisions of the Divorce Act.