Matthew Helfand

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a non-decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 348-unit residential apartment building in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties, noting that the applicant's development plans had been revised and may continue to change through ongoing discussions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Markham's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a mixed-use development.

New World Centre (Markham) Development Corp., a neighbouring property owner, requested and was granted party status on consent.

The parties advised they are engaged in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for August 21, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and consolidated Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a 143-unit mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement involving revisions to the development, including increased setbacks, reduced podium height, and enclosed loading areas.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement in principle and withheld its final order pending the fulfillment of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and its heritage designation of the subject property.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals, declined to consolidate the appeals, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for March 2023.

The applicants appealed the failure of the Town of The Blue Mountains and the County of Grey to make decisions on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The applications sought to increase the permitted residential units from 609 to 659 for a development on the subject lands.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised plans and conditions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the applicable official plans, and represents good land use planning.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 28-storey mixed-use residential building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-laws were amended accordingly.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a multi-storey residential building.

At a case management conference, the Tribunal consolidated a site-specific appeal against the City's Comprehensive Zoning By-law with the current proceedings.

The Tribunal also approved a draft procedural order, issues list, and scheduled a 15-day Phase 1 hearing.

The appellant appealed the County's adoption of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment that would permit a 337-unit seasonal park model trailer site on a 38.6-hectare parcel along Lake Ontario.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that modified the original applications to address concerns regarding seasonal occupancy, wildlife corridors, landscape details, and transportation.

The Tribunal approved the settlement in principle, finding it consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Planning Act, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of agreed-upon conditions.

The landlord brought a motion for an interim order requiring the tenants to pay ongoing rent and outstanding arrears of $70,200 pending the final adjudication of the landlord's claim and the tenants' counterclaim for an abatement.

The tenants agreed to pay ongoing rent but argued they should not have to pay the arrears until the matter was resolved.

The court held that tenants are not entitled to unilaterally abate rent prior to a decision on the merits.

The court ordered the tenants to pay ongoing rent and to pay the arrears in six monthly instalments, with 50% of the payments to be held in trust by the landlord's counsel pending final determination.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use waterfront development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal comprising nine buildings, including a hotel, townhouses, and an apartment building.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement by-law.

The applicant brought a motion to strike portions of a witness statement filed by the appellant's lay witness, which contained opinion evidence on cultural heritage and appended an expert report.

The appellant had previously advised it would not call a cultural heritage expert, leading the other parties to withdraw their own experts.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the lay witness was not qualified to give expert opinion evidence on cultural heritage and that appending the expert report without calling the expert was improper and unfair, as it prevented cross-examination.

The witness statement was struck in its entirety, with leave to file a fresh statement omitting the improper evidence.

The plaintiff landlord brought an interim motion for the payment of rent pending the hearing of its action to evict the defendant tenants and recover arrears.

The self-represented tenants requested an adjournment on the day of the hearing, citing severe respiratory illness supported by doctors' notes.

Despite concerns about the tenants' history of delay tactics, the court reluctantly granted a brief, peremptory adjournment, ordering the tenants to pay $4,006.00 in partial rent prior to the return date.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a zoning by-law amendment without a hearing.

The appellant, a self-represented marine engineer, raised concerns about soil stability and groundwater, but indicated he would not call any expert witnesses.

The Tribunal found the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success as the appellant was not qualified to give expert opinion evidence on these matters, which had already been reviewed and accepted by City engineers.

The Tribunal also found the appeal vexatious and lacking an apparent land use planning ground, as building safety is governed by the Building Code.

The motion was granted and the appeal dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Sifton Properties Limited against the County of Brant's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and a plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming 18-day hearing scheduled to commence on September 25, 2023.

The appellant appealed the County of Brant's failure to make decisions on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit a residential development.

At a case management conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal scheduled an 18-day video hearing and directed the parties to submit a revised procedural order.

The parties indicated ongoing settlement discussions and the potential for future Tribunal-assisted mediation.

The applicant appealed the Town's failure to make decisions on applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit residential development on portions of an existing golf course.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policy, protected natural heritage features, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part and the instruments approved in principle.

The applicant sought minor variances for lot coverage, building height, and platform size to construct five detached dwellings.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances.

Neighbouring residents appealed, arguing the variances would exacerbate drainage and flooding issues.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appeals without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that drainage and grading are site plan matters, not land use planning grounds relevant to the requested variances, and the appeals had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by the applicant concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 143-unit mixed-use development.

The order sets out the schedule, issues list, and procedural requirements for the 10-day video hearing scheduled to commence on March 13, 2023.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision to authorize minor variances for an industrial development consisting of a warehouse facility with loading bays.

The appellant, a neighbouring residential property owner, raised concerns regarding noise, compatibility, and property values.

The Tribunal found that the proposed variances, subject to conditions including a noise attenuation wall and further acoustic testing, met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and authorized the variances.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 15-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two individuals, directed the parties to submit a revised Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing for March 2023.