Martin Mazierski

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding 14 active appeals to the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 777 (Sheppard East Secondary Plan).

The City requested the scheduling of a fourth CMC and a three-week merit hearing for March 2027.

The Tribunal established procedural deadlines and scheduled the fourth CMC for September 2026, but declined to schedule the merit hearing at this stage due to ongoing mediation, pending City Council instructions, and the lack of finalized issues lists and procedural orders.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and reserved costs, fixed at the agreed amount of $7,500, to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying variances to construct a warehouse in a Core Employment Area.

The requested variances included reduced side yard setbacks, a reduced driveway width, and permission for a front yard loading space.

The Tribunal found that the side yard and driveway variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, as they were appropriate for the narrow lot and consistent with the area's character.

However, the Tribunal refused the variance for the front yard loading space, finding it contrary to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law's intent to limit vehicular access in front of buildings and protect the public realm.

The appellant was directed to submit a revised site plan eliminating the front yard loading space.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance to increase maximum lot coverage from 35% to 44.39% to permit a covered rear yard porch.

The municipality did not participate in the hearing, though its planning staff had supported the application.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the variance maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable, and was minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized, subject to a condition requiring solid wood privacy screening.

The applicant sought minor variances to construct a three-storey addition to an existing detached dwelling, which were refused by the Committee of Adjustment.

The appellant appealed the refusal to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the appellant abandoned the appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and closed the file, rendering the Committee of Adjustment's decision final and binding.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of consent and minor variance applications to the Toronto Local Appeal Body.

The applicant missed multiple filing deadlines for disclosure and expert witness statements due to the expert witness's health issues.

At the hearing, the applicant brought motions to admit the late-filed materials and to adjourn the hearing.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding the expert's health issues constituted a legitimate reason, and admitted the late-filed materials into the record, noting the absence of other parties or participants who might be prejudiced.

The appellants appealed the conditional approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission of a development permit application to demolish an existing one-storey dwelling and construct a two-storey single dwelling.

Following a case management conference where the parties discussed issues and settlement, the appellants withdrew their appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal consequently dismissed the appeal.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a conditional approval for the demolition of a single-storey dwelling and construction of a two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the conference, one appellant withdrew their appeal and the remaining appellants were excused for medical reasons.

The Tribunal rescheduled the Case Management Conference to allow the parties to review and narrow the issues without undue delay.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for building length and side yard setbacks to permit the construction of a new two-storey dwelling.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included a partial setback of the proposed north side wall.

The tribunal accepted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act, finding it consistent with provincial policy and compatible with the neighbourhood's physical character.

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

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances for a neighbouring property to permit reduced setbacks for privacy screens, a cabana, and pool equipment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part.

It authorized the variances for the privacy screens, finding they met the four tests under the Planning Act.

However, it refused the variances for the cabana and pool equipment, accepting expert evidence that the cabana's size and location were obtrusive and that the pool equipment generated noise exceeding municipal and provincial criteria, thereby failing the minor variance tests.