Marc Kemerer

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a proposed 35-storey mixed-use building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an abutting property owner, Roehampton Towers Inc., on consent.

The parties requested a future date to set a Procedural Order and Issues List or to convert the matter into a settlement hearing, as productive discussions were ongoing.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan, Bromont Homes Inc. sought clarification on whether the urban settlement boundary for Lindsay remained a live issue for the upcoming Phase 2 Hearing.

The City and other parties argued the issue was settled and Bromont should have appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal found that previous orders explicitly preserved Bromont's right to argue against the boundary adjustment and ordered that the issue will be adjudicated at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and consents to sever four new residential lots.

At the Case Management Conference, the Tribunal addressed requests for party and participant status, granting participant status to several area residents.

As the Township had not yet finalized its position on the applications, the Tribunal declined to set a hearing date and instead scheduled a further Telephone Conference Call to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by a local resident against the City's enactment of a Zoning By-law Amendment and approval of a draft plan of subdivision.

The parties disagreed on the extent of the issues raised by the appellant.

The Tribunal approved a Procedural Order and Issues List that limited the appeal to the narrow issue set out in the original Notice of Appeal, finding that allowing new issues would be tantamount to extending the appeal period.

A three-day video hearing was scheduled.

A case management conference was held to consider hearing appeals related to the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment 119, Zoning By-law Amendment 2020-418, and the new Official Plan together.

The Tribunal ordered the matters to be heard together for case management purposes.

Additionally, the Tribunal granted a motion by 409 Brant St. Ltd., finding that ZBA 2020-418 does not apply to its site, which had the statutory effect of releasing the site from the Interim Control By-law and reinstating its prior zoning.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision to approve minor variances for the construction of an in-ground swimming pool and an ancillary shed on the subject property.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised site plan that increased the size of the daylight triangle to address safety concerns.

Based on the uncontested planning evidence of the City planner, the Tribunal found that the amended variances met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the conditions agreed upon in the settlement.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing under section 34(25) of the Planning Act.

The appellant, a professional planner who admitted a personal interest in the outcome, failed to provide any independent expert evidence to support his environmental and planning concerns.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontradicted expert evidence of the Township's planner that the amendment was consistent with provincial policies and the Official Plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds, was frivolous and vexatious, and was made only for the purpose of delay.

The applicant unit owner filed an application challenging the validity of an amendment to the condominium corporation's declaration regarding animals, alleging procedural non-compliance with the Condominium Act.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute was solely about process and the applicant lacked standing due to failing to register a corporate name change.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the applicant had standing as a registered owner and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider procedural matters when determining the validity of a declaration provision governing animals.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the new Official Plan for the City of Burlington, as modified and approved by the Regional Municipality of Halton.

The Tribunal granted party and participant status to several requestors and set deadlines for the submission of issues lists and a draft Procedural Order.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled to address overlapping appeals with another Official Plan Amendment.

The applicant sought to quash a resolution adopted by the City of Toronto directing negotiations for a Voluntary Recognition Agreement with a specific union.

The applicant argued the resolution was discriminatory and created an unlawful monopoly.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the City has the authority under the City of Toronto Act, 2006 to manage its labour relations and pass bylaws respecting its construction projects.

The court noted that the validity of any resulting agreement would be a matter for the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Several landowners appealed the assessments and allowances in the Engineer's Report for the South Innisfil Creek Drain Improvement under the Drainage Act.

The appellants argued that their assessments were too high, that the municipality should bear more costs due to past lack of maintenance, and that the drain improvements would not benefit them until downstream culverts were replaced.

A golf course owner appealed the allowance for loss of access, arguing it should cover four bridges instead of one.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessment appeals, finding the engineer's allocations fair and reasonable.

However, the Tribunal allowed the golf course's appeal in part, increasing the allowance for one bridge from $41,600 to $137,500 based on expert evidence, while agreeing that only one bridge should be funded by the drain.

The moving party sought permission to file late appeals of residential property assessments for the 2014 to 2018 taxation years.

The moving party claimed he did not receive the assessment notices because they were sent to his former address while he was renovating the subject property.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that the Legislature removed the Board's authority to extend the time for appealing residential property assessments under the Assessment Act.

Furthermore, the moving party failed to meet the requirements for late filing under the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as he did not update his address with MPAC and failed to prove the application was filed within 30 days of becoming aware of the assessments.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision that required it to contribute to the maintenance and repair of a haul route in a neighbouring municipality as a condition for an aggregate quarry licence.

The moving party argued the OMB lacked jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Municipal Act, and related regulations to impose such a condition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of its broad jurisdiction to impose conditions regarding haul routes was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) decision that required it to contribute to the maintenance and repair costs of a haul route in a neighbouring municipality as a condition of its quarry licence.

The moving party argued the OMB lacked jurisdiction under the Aggregate Resources Act, the Municipal Act, and related regulations to impose such a condition.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the OMB's interpretation of its home statutes and related legislation was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed the Director's refusal to approve two wind turbines in a Renewable Energy Approval.

The appellant later sought to withdraw this portion of the appeal and amend a condition regarding Blanding's Turtle as part of a settlement.

The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal regarding the turbines but adjourned the hearing on the settlement agreement amending the condition until related appeals by other parties were resolved, to avoid conflicting outcomes.