Paul De Melo

A first Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of York's decision to approve Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6 to the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan.

The Tribunal confirmed the validity of one appeal filed by email on the final day of the statutory period.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident and party status to several corporate entities.

A motion was scheduled to determine whether the Region properly provided the Notice of Decision to two entities seeking appellant status, considering legislative changes under Bill 23 and Bill 185 that shifted approval authority from the Region to the City.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to further refine the issues.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated April 6, 2023.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended paragraph 20 of the decision to reflect that the effective date of the order was October 11, 2022, rather than September 8, 2022.

The applicants appealed the City of Barrie's adoption of By-law No. 2022-009 and its failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 46-townhouse development.

At a settlement hearing, uncontroverted expert planning evidence demonstrated that the revised proposal for 46 units (reduced from 88) is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, repealed By-law No. 2022-009, and approved the requested Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal regarding compensation for properties expropriated by the City of Toronto.

The appellants challenged the Tribunal's valuation of the properties, the start and end dates for interest, and the denial of disturbance damages for lost business opportunities and replacement property costs.

The City cross-appealed the award of 12% interest for delay and disturbance damages for lost commissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's factual findings or legal interpretations, except for a minor variation to the calculation of loan costs agreed upon by the parties.

The appellant appealed a decision finding no conflict between a municipal property maintenance by-law and the waste exemption for demolition materials under s. 2(3)(c) of Regulation 347 of the Environmental Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the exemption requires materials to be used for construction within a reasonable time, which aligns with the by-law's requirement to remove refuse within a reasonable time.

The court concluded that compliance with the regulation does not preclude compliance with the by-law.