Marisa Keating

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the new Official Plan for the Town of Collingwood.

The Tribunal directed the parties to prepare a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address procedural matters and a motion by the Town to bring unappealed portions of the Official Plan into force.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order for appeals against the County of Simcoe's approval of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

Lorablue Developments Inc. requested an adjournment of its appeal, arguing it was site-specific and required ecological studies.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment, finding the appeal included broad policy issues that should be addressed at the scheduled hearing, though the parties could later agree to defer the issues if narrowed.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and set the hearing dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Town of Collingwood's new Official Plan.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a written settlement hearing and a telephone conference call to address a revised phased hearing plan and proposed settlements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a 22-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local resident, scheduled a three-day merit hearing, and approved the parties' Draft Procedural Order.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3000-unit mixed-use community redevelopment.

The parties reached a full settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended planning instruments.

The applicant appealed the Township of King's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 28-unit single detached residential development.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with applicable provincial and municipal plans, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the draft plan and zoning by-law amendments in principle, with the final order withheld pending satisfaction of specified conditions.

The appellant appealed the passing of a zoning by-law by the City of Kawartha Lakes, arguing it did not provide adequate permissions for a religious educational centre and place of worship.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested a four-day hearing be scheduled.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing as no draft Procedural Order or Issues List had been submitted, and instead scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Cachet Developments and Losani Homes against two development charges by-laws passed by the City of Brantford.

The parties agreed to engage in informal mediation and requested additional time to finalize the issues list and discuss potential consolidation of the appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for August 30, 2022, to finalize the procedural order and set hearing dates.

At a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township's failure to make decisions on zoning and subdivision applications, the Tribunal was advised that a settlement in principle had been reached between the statutory parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC, with directions that it be converted to a written hearing if a full settlement is finalized with the remaining parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated January 6, 2022.

The amendment added Cachet Developments (Orangeville) Inc. as an Applicant/Appellant alongside Transmetro Limited in the appearances section and the introductory paragraph.

In all other respects, the original decision regarding the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments remained unchanged.

The applicant appealed the Town of Orangeville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit four six-storey mixed-use buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable Growth Plan and Official Plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the revised amendments in principle.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 453, which introduces policies and definitions for dwelling rooms to protect affordable housing.

The City and the University of Toronto reached a settlement, and other appellants scoped their appeals to be site-specific.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved OPA 453, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan, while withholding the order for specific properties subject to ongoing site-specific appeals.

Whitewall Property Corporation was also granted non-appellant party status.

The City of Toronto adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 453 (OPA 453) to introduce policies regarding dwelling rooms, affordable housing, and tenant relocation.

Several parties appealed the amendment.

Prior to the hearing, the City and the University of Toronto reached a settlement, and the remaining appellants scoped their appeals to be site-specific.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended OPA 453 is consistent with provincial policies and maintains the intent of the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved OPA 453, except for two site-specific appeals which remain ongoing.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Sarah Properties Ltd. following the Town of Orangeville's failure to render a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applications seek to facilitate a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 3-week video hearing to commence on October 31, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Toronto's approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

The Tribunal granted party status to three non-appellant entities, subject to their sheltering under existing issues.

The Tribunal noted that the parties have agreed to Tribunal-led mediation and found it premature to require the preparation of an Issues List until mediation is completed.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2021.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 499 (the 'Golden Mile' secondary plan).

Three non-appellant entities were granted party status on consent, subject to the requirement that they shelter under issues raised by existing appellants.

The Tribunal noted that the parties agreed to enter Tribunal-led mediation to scope issues and find common ground.

The Tribunal found it premature to require the parties to finalize an Issues List before the conclusion of mediation, but ordered the City to submit a draft Issues List prior to the next CMC.

A second CMC was scheduled for October 2021.

Following an application regarding the continuation of a legal non-conforming use, the applicant sought costs of $60,186.30 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued for each party to bear their own costs due to divided success, or alternatively $20,000.

The court found there was genuinely divided success as the applicant was successful on the declaration but overreached on the injunction, which the respondent successfully resisted.

Applying Rule 57.01, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $38,000 all-inclusive.

The applicant sought declarations regarding the continuation of legal non-conforming uses on his property, affirmation of an existing injunction against the Town, and an order to register court judgments on title.

The court granted declarations affirming that the property's uses, including a motor vehicle compound, were a continuation of previously recognized legal non-conforming uses.

The court dismissed the requests for an affirmation of the injunction, finding no contravention by the Town, and for an order to register judgments, deeming it a matter for the Land Titles system.

The plaintiff hotel sought an injunction to restrain the neighbouring defendant tire shop from servicing commercial vehicles, alleging the noise constituted a nuisance and breached municipal by-laws and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA).

The court found that the noise from servicing commercial vehicles likely caused an adverse effect, breaching s. 9(1) of the EPA and, consequently, the municipal zoning by-law.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from servicing commercial vehicles between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. to prevent irreparable harm to the hotel's reputation.

Following a successful motion to enforce zoning bylaws and property rights, the plaintiff municipality sought costs.

The defendants argued the motion was unnecessary and sought their own costs.

The court found the plaintiff acted properly in bringing the motion in the public interest and was entitled to costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs and costs thrown away, totalling $71,220.90.