Matthew W. Rutledge

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a proposed development of stacked townhouses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and participant status to a local resident.

A participant status request from the Pearson Accountability Alliance was denied as the organization did not attend the hearing and the applicant noted that aircraft noise issues were being addressed with the Greater Toronto Airport Authority.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions and orders of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000, to be awarded at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated May 4, 2026.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal corrected the definition of the acronym 'LTSSC' from 'Lake Toe of Slope Stability Crest' to 'Long Term Stable Slope Crest'.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement for a 13-storey building with enhanced setbacks, environmental protection for the adjacent ravine, and public realm improvements.

Relying on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policy, and is in the public interest.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of various conditions.

The City of Burlington requested a review of a Tribunal decision that refused to dismiss an appeal of the new City Official Plan.

The original decision held that the appeal survived the sale of the subject property because it was 'tied to the land', and directed the City to contact the new owner.

The Tribunal Chair granted the request for review, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Chair held that while Tribunal decisions regarding permitted land uses run with the land (in rem), the right to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal is a personal right (in personam).

The original decision was varied to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The appellant brought a motion for directions to prohibit the City of Hamilton from seeking an alternative position at the upcoming Phase 2 merit hearing.

The City's alternative position was that if the Tribunal approved an urban boundary expansion, the subject lands should be designated for employment uses rather than residential uses.

The Tribunal found that the approved Issues List did not capture an intent to present employment land needs evidence or support the alternative position.

The motion was granted, prohibiting the City from leading such evidence or seeking the alternative position at the Phase 2 hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal convened a fourth Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment introducing interim policies for Major Transit Station Areas, and the new City Official Plan.

The City provided a status update on ongoing settlement negotiations and proposed future motions.

The Tribunal deferred consideration of consolidating the appeals and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for July 8, 2026.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a mixed-use development comprising seven buildings and a public park.

The parties reached a settlement proposal.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested planning evidence that the revised proposal, which includes transit-supportive density near a planned transit station and appropriate height transitions, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the planning instruments were approved in principle subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a midrise mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal for two buildings of 14 and 17 storeys.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to obtain status updates on the remaining appeals of the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on various issue-specific and site-specific appeals, noting ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal directed all appellants to provide written updates to the City regarding their intentions to continue settlement discussions or provide an issues list, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 2026.

The applicant brought a motion for directions under s. 22(6.2) of the Planning Act to determine whether its Official Plan Amendment application should be deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

The City had issued notices of incomplete application citing various outstanding studies and reports, including an archaeological assessment, karst assessment, and approved terms of reference for environmental studies.

The Tribunal found that the City's grounds for deeming the application incomplete were insufficient, as many of the requested items were either not prescribed by the Act, not required by the Official Plan, or had been adequately addressed by the applicant's submissions.

The motion was granted and the application was deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to adjourn the Phase 2B Hearing regarding appeals by the appellant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The City argued that there was insufficient time to prepare for the scheduled January 2026 dates due to the complexity of the issues and the need for expert coordination.

The appellant consented to a short adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing to commence in February 2026.

The applicants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application to establish a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) for the redevelopment of the Centrepoint Mall site.

The parties reached a settlement agreement on a Revised SASP that will guide the future mixed-use redevelopment of the site, including new public streets, a central park, and high-density residential and commercial uses near a planned subway station.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the Revised SASP consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan, and allowed the appeal in part to approve the policy.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a corrective order under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend a previous Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The correction fixed a typographical error in the spelling of counsel's name for Home Depot of Canada Inc. from Noah Jorden to Noah Gordon.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The Applicants and the Town of Caledon brought a motion for approval of a settlement concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a 4-storey residential condominium.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) opposed the settlement, arguing that the Tribunal's previous 2022 decision failed to make determinations on natural hazard and negative impact issues.

The Tribunal declined to conduct a review or reconsideration of its 2022 decision, finding no statutory basis to do so.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Town's Official Plan, and approved the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for Major Transit Station Areas and the new City Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to 201 County Court Brampton Holdings Inc. on consent.

The parties reported progress in mediation and proposed a written settlement motion once a draft order is finalized.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2026 to address outstanding matters and potential consolidation of the appeals.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by River Mill Development Corporation against conditions of a draft plan of subdivision approved by the City of Cambridge.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions and subsequently advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The Tribunal ordered that the previously scheduled merit hearing be converted to a settlement hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application to permit a 4-tower high-rise residential development on a portion of a former golf course, with the remainder dedicated as public open space.

The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority opposed the development, arguing it was located in a hazardous area (erosion hazard) and would negatively impact the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal found that the development site, located on a stable paleo terrace, was safe from natural hazards and that the proposed mitigation and restoration measures would result in no net negative impact on the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the OPA and ZBA in principle, while adjourning the Site Plan Application to allow the parties to resolve outstanding technical issues.

The appellant brought a motion for disclosure of the City's hydraulic water and wastewater models, as well as data related to airport noise contours, in the context of an appeal concerning an urban boundary expansion.

The City consented to releasing the water model but opposed releasing the wastewater model and the airport data, arguing the wastewater model was inaccurate and the airport data was not in its possession.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of both models, finding them relevant and necessary since the City intended to rely on them to some extent.

The Tribunal also ordered the City to disclose the airport data if and when it becomes available to the City, failing which neither party may rely on it at the merit hearing.