Matthew Lakatos-Hayward

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the redevelopment of the subject site with two 11-storey residential buildings.

The parties reached a settlement and presented revised amendments to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order until several conditions are satisfied.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in a previous decision regarding an appeal for a 28-storey mixed-use building in Toronto.

The amendment corrected a phone number provided for audio-only access to the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 28-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and approved the Procedural Order.

The Tribunal noted that a community association party failed to submit an Issues List and is therefore precluded from raising new issues at the hearing.

The appellant requested a last-minute adjournment of the third Case Management Conference to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions regarding appeals of a zoning by-law amendment and official plan amendment for a 21-storey residential building.

All parties consented to the request.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the adjournment and scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference.

The appellants appealed the City of Burlington's Parkland Dedication By-law No. 62-2022 under section 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

At the Case Management Conference, the City advised that it was preparing a new Parkland Dedication By-law expected to be presented to City Council in July 2023, which may address the appellants' concerns.

On consent of all parties, the Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for September 8, 2023, to update the Tribunal on the status of the new by-law and settlement discussions.

The applicants appealed the City's failure to make a decision on their Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate a 14-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference where the parties requested a second conference to allow for further discussions and the preparation of a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and directed the parties to submit the draft order and issues list beforehand.

The applicant appealed the Township of Muskoka Lakes Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance to increase the maximum permitted floor area for a sleeping cabin.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a sleeping cabin with a floor area of 1,235 square feet, subject to conditions.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal met the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the applicable Official Plans.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized.

The applicant requested final approval of an amended Plan of Subdivision and modified Draft Plan Conditions following a prior Tribunal decision.

The modifications were sought to implement changes resulting from Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks permit requirements and technical reviews, improving stormwater management and heritage protection.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the changes to be minor, consistent with Provincial Policy, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal approved the modified Draft Plan and Conditions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for an appeal by Royal Mimico Developments Limited regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to abutting property owners Heather and Hubert Walsh.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to consider consolidating this appeal with a newly filed official plan amendment appeal for the same property.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application, the Tribunal substituted CF Sherway Tru Rec Inc. as a party and granted party status to Home Depot of Canada Inc. and Amexon Realty Inc. The Tribunal also scheduled a motion to determine whether to consolidate this appeal with the Sherway Gardens Appeal, and scheduled a third Case Management Conference.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of a minor variance application and failure to make a decision on a site plan application for an 8-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the appellant reached a settlement with the City and an abutting neighbour.

The Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and met the four-part test for minor variances under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, authorizing the variances and approving the site plan in principle, subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2970 Lakeshore GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed 9-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal denied a request for a written hearing, issued a Procedural Order, and scheduled a 12-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 469 (Sherway Area Secondary Plan).

The Tribunal substituted CF Sherway Tru Rec Inc. as a party, finalized the Procedural Order and Issues List for the upcoming seven-week hearing, and scheduled a three-day motion to address the scope of Cadillac Fairview's appeal and a potential consolidation with another appeal.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Cadillac Fairview from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for 25 The West Mall.

The Tribunal granted party status to SmartCentres REIT, Fima Development, and Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited.

A motion to consolidate this appeal with the Sherway Gardens Appeal was scheduled, along with subsequent Case Management Conferences.

The Tribunal convened a Telephone Conference Call to address a party's failure to comply with the Procedural Order in an appeal concerning a site plan control and minor variance application.

The self-represented party failed to file witness lists or exchange documents, and sought to raise issues outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal revoked the individual's party status due to non-compliance and converted his status to a participant, allowing him to submit a written statement.

The City of Toronto brought a motion for partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 469 (the Sherway Area Secondary Plan) following a partial settlement with several appellants.

The Tribunal approved the motion, bringing unappealed portions of the OPA into force and approving specific modifications on a plan-wide basis, while preserving site-specific and precinct-specific appeals for future adjudication.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a seven-week hearing for the remaining appeals.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City's refusal of a minor variance application and failure to make a decision on a site plan control application.

The parties discussed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, with the Tribunal directing the parties to finalize the issues and setting a four-day video hearing for December 2022.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 450 and the failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications for properties on Laird Drive.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the zoning by-law amendments and the appeal of OPA 450.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the zoning by-law amendments and modifications to OPA 450.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 450 and the failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment applications for properties on Laird Drive.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the zoning by-law amendments and the OPA 450 appeal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and in the public interest.

The Tribunal approved the zoning by-law amendments and modified OPA 450 accordingly.

The appellant appealed the property assessment for the 2020 to 2022 taxation years, arguing that the current value of the property had decreased due to COVID-19 regulatory restrictions.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the appeals, arguing that the correct valuation day remained January 1, 2016, and that the issue of the property's value as of that date had already been resolved by a settlement agreement for the 2018 and 2019 taxation years.

The Assessment Review Board found that the correct valuation day was January 1, 2016, and applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to prevent the appellant from re-litigating the property's value.

The appeals were dismissed.