Mark Robert Flowers

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town of Innisfil's refusal to amend its Community Planning Permit System By-law to permit an in-water boathouse.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting neighbour and participant status to several others.

A motion for direction regarding document delivery and property inspection was adjourned to a second CMC to allow for the exchange of more specific information.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order to invalidate and repeal a municipal by-law designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued the municipality failed to follow statutory procedures when issuing the Notice of Intention to Designate.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 29(15) of the Ontario Heritage Act and sections 8 and 9 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to repeal a by-law on a motion without first holding a hearing on the merits of the appeal.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of the City of Ottawa's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for a proposed 1,500-unit residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to an abutting landowner and a group of neighbouring residents, and participant status to two other residents.

A five-week hearing on the merits was scheduled to commence in June 2026.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 63-2024 for the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan area.

Several appeals were withdrawn, and the remaining appellants agreed to scope their appeals to be site-specific and adjourn them sine die.

The Tribunal acknowledged the withdrawals, adjourned the remaining site-specific appeals sine die, released the scheduled 10-day hearing dates, and directed the parties to provide a status update within one year.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Gabriele Homes Ltd. against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on consent.

A request for party status by the Protect Our Ravines Initiative was denied, as their concerns aligned with those of the City and TRCA, but they were offered participant status.

Numerous individuals were granted participant status.

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

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan to permit a 40-storey apartment building.

The City argued the building should be limited to 32 storeys and raised concerns about the floorplate size and amenity space.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the 40-storey height and 850 square metre floorplate, finding them compatible with the surrounding context.

However, the Tribunal required the amenity space to be increased to the standard 5.6 square metres per unit and excluded a narrow balcony from the amenity space calculation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order governing the upcoming hearing for appeals by the applicant regarding the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The amendments seek to permit two mixed-use residential development towers at 321-355 Symington Avenue and 350 Campbell Avenue.

The order sets out the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for the 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on October 27, 2025.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss appeals of Official Plan Amendments 142, 143, and 144, which related to Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs).

The City argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act because the appealed policies identified authorized land uses within a PMTSA.

The responding party, White Elm, argued that changing a land use designation from 'Mixed Use' to 'Mixed Use Limited' did not identify an authorized use.

Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the Tribunal agreed with the City, finding that amending a land use designation inherently identifies and limits permitted uses.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed White Elm's appeal, ruling the policy unappealable.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 777 (Sheppard East Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal granted Added Party status to the Toronto Lands Corporation, finding it is a public body that meets the statutory requirements under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also granted Participant status to the Sheppard Avenue East Community Group on consent.

The Tribunal directed the parties to consider mediation and set a schedule for finalizing the Issues List ahead of the next Case Management Conference.

The Town of Wasaga Beach brought a motion to dismiss an appeal by Achille Developments Ltd. concerning applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Town argued the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under section 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act because the Town Council passed a resolution categorically refusing to assume any public works or enter into development agreements for the proposed subdivision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that a municipal resolution refusing to provide servicing does not automatically eliminate the reasonable prospect of success of an appeal on land use planning grounds, and the appellant is entitled to a full hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendments concerning Major Transit Station Areas.

The City requested that potential settlements be addressed via written hearings once council instructions are received, and that a party status request by Brampton Plan be deferred.

The Tribunal agreed, deferring the party status request and scheduling a further Case Management Conference for October 2025.

The applicants brought motions under s. 22(6.2) of the Planning Act for directions to determine the completeness of their respective Official Plan Amendment applications seeking to expand the urban boundary.

The City of Ottawa had deemed the applications incomplete, citing the need for additional studies and reports under a newly enacted Development Application Study Policy By-law.

The Tribunal found that the City's Official Plan did not explicitly enumerate the additional requirements, failing the condition precedent in s. 22(5) of the Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the requested materials, including an Infrastructure Capacity Assessment to be completed by the City, were unreasonable requirements for the procedural step of deeming an application complete.

The Tribunal also applied the Clergy principle to find that the new requirements did not apply retroactively to the Caivan application.

Both motions were granted, and the applications were deemed complete as of their respective submission dates.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 56-storey mixed-use building in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted party status to four entities on consent.

The Tribunal also ordered that the appeals be heard together with a related adjacent appeal at a 15-day hearing commencing in October 2025, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Claimant sought compensation for the expropriation of a portion of its vacant property by the Regional Municipality of York for a bus rapid transit system.

The central issue was determining the highest and best use of the property before expropriation.

The Claimant argued for a 12-storey mixed-use development, while the Region argued for a low-rise commercial development, asserting that the Claimant's concept was not legally permissible due to required land dedications and policies influenced by the expropriation scheme.

The Tribunal rejected the Region's arguments, finding that the Claimant's pre-expropriation concept was legally permissible, physically possible, financially feasible, and maximally profitable.

The Tribunal awarded $857,493 for the fee simple taking, $1,502,067 for injurious affection to the remainder of the property, and $12,348 for a temporary easement.

The Municipality of Northern Bruce Peninsula passed a zoning by-law amendment to add a definition of a 'Commercial Tour Boat Operation' and include it as a permitted use in all C1 zones.

The Big Tub Harbour Citizens Committee appealed, arguing the use was incompatible with the existing residential community along Big Tub Road.

Bruce Anchor also appealed regarding parking provisions, which were settled prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the Citizens Committee's appeal, finding that the amendment conforms to the Official Plan, represents good land use planning, and is in the public interest, as commercial tour boat operations have historically operated from the subject properties and provide important tourism and employment opportunities.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's approval of a proposed plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing to commence on July 21, 2025, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings for an appeal regarding a proposed 50-storey residential building at 2350-2352 Yonge Street in Toronto.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on October 6, 2025, for 15 days.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Achille Developments Ltd. for a proposed 364-unit residential subdivision in the Town of Wasaga Beach, following the Town's failure to make decisions on official plan, zoning, and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to the County of Simcoe and Wasaga Sands Heritage Group Ltd., and participant status to several individuals.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for September 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Town of Halton Hills' decision to designate a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The parties indicated they were not ready for settlement discussions or mediation pending the resolution of an open motion.

The Tribunal scheduled a one-day motion hearing for July 10, 2025, and established a timetable for the exchange of motion materials.

The City of Ottawa appealed a remittal decision that found various provisions of a 1981 Agreement and related contracts governing golf course lands to be inoperative.

The Court of Appeal had previously struck down conveyancing provisions in the agreement for violating the rule against perpetuities.

The application judge held that without these provisions, the remaining obligations to operate a golf course in perpetuity fundamentally altered the parties' original bargain and were therefore inoperative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the removal of the conveyancing provisions frustrated the balance of the agreement, rendering all provisions relating to the golf course lands void.