Natalie Ast

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement agreement for a development containing three buildings and a public park.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments represent good planning, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the OPA and ZBA on an interim basis, and adjourned the subdivision appeal sine die.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on their applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan approval for a mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to Redpath Sugar Ltd., the Toronto Port Authority, and Pier 27 Toronto (Northwest) Inc., and participant status to three individuals.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing, and directed the parties to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 39-storey mixed-use building in the Village of Yorkville.

The Tribunal found that the subject property is located within a designated low-rise area under Site and Area Specific Policy 211.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's argument that the policy boundary should be moved to accommodate the tall building, finding that the proposed development did not respect or reinforce the existing low-scale character of the neighbourhood.

The appeals were dismissed as the applications did not conform to the City's Official Plan.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent municipality.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 778, which updates the Avenues Policy Framework.

The Tribunal granted party status to 430 Royal York GP Inc. to scope the appeals concerning its property.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to consider a participant status request, receive status updates, and potentially hear scoping motions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal regarding an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey building at 69 Yorkville Avenue in Toronto.

The order sets out the schedule of events, issues list, and order of evidence for a 9-day hearing scheduled to commence on July 28, 2025.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.5.

The appellants confirmed their appeals were scoped on a site-specific basis to 9218 Yonge Street and 9251 Yonge Street.

The Tribunal ordered that OPA 18.5 is in force and effect on a plan-wide basis, save and except for the two site-specific addresses, pursuant to subsection 17(39) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also approved a Draft Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming merit hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

At the second case management conference, the parties requested to convert the scheduled merit hearing into a case management conference because revised plans submitted by the applicant did not result in a settlement.

The Tribunal adjourned the merit hearing, directed the filing of a new procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a new nine-day merit hearing for July 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 9218 Yonge Street Inc., Taheri Development Inc., and Yonge Sixteen Inc. against the City of Richmond Hill's approval of Official Plan Amendment 18.5.

The parties requested a second CMC in six to eight weeks to allow for without prejudice discussions aimed at resolving the appeals, noting that site-specific appeals for the appellants' properties had already been adjudicated.

The Tribunal agreed and scheduled a second CMC for November 29, 2024.

The applicant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-density, mixed-use development consisting of 38- and 43-storey towers with 962 rental units and reduced parking.

The City opposed the development, arguing it represented an overdevelopment with insufficient parking and inappropriate massing.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed development is transit-supportive, aligns with the objectives of the Key Development Area, and is consistent with provincial, regional, and municipal planning policies.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until the final forms of the amendments and related site plan are finalized.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit two purpose-built rental apartment buildings.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council and supported by adjacent landowners.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the finalization of the instruments and necessary easements.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion at a Case Management Conference seeking to resolve several site-specific appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved site-specific amendments for properties owned by Dufferin Vistas Ltd., Condor Properties Ltd., and Armland Management Inc. The Tribunal also provided directions for other appeals to be considered at future Case Management Conferences and acknowledged the withdrawal of certain appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Westchester Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval applications for 33 Walsh Avenue.

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

A request for party status by a local resident was denied, with the Tribunal noting his concerns were covered by the City's issues list and he would remain a participant.

The Tribunal approved a revised Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 13-day merit hearing for February 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a transit-oriented development at 88 Steeles Avenue West.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, which permits two high-rise residential towers, represents good planning and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of specified conditions.

The appellants appealed the City of Vaughan's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that facilitated a high-rise residential development.

The appellants, who owned adjacent properties, primarily objected to the proposed alignment of a new stratified north-south public local road, arguing it would inequitably restrict their own future development potential.

The Tribunal found that the approved road alignment, which was the City's preferred option following a transportation master plan update, represented good planning and was in the public interest.

The Tribunal also noted that the approved development included a significant community benefits package that could be jeopardized by altering the road alignment.

The appeals were dismissed.

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Pleasant Condos GP Inc. against the City of Toronto concerning site plan approval and minor variances to permit an increase in the height of a residential tower from 35 to 40 storeys.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Avoca Vale Residents' Association and party status to 40 Rosehill Avenue (MTCC No. 773) for the minor variance appeal.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 15, 2024, to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision application for a multi-tower residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal comprising 870 units, including rental replacement units, a new public road, and a public park, while incorporating existing heritage facades.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with provincial policies and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several preconditions.