Matthew W. Rutledge

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a revised Procedural Order to govern the hearing of appeals by Greenline Renovations Plus Ltd. concerning the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment for the property at 65-81 McCormack Street.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on June 16, 2025.

Metrolinx brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by the claimant during an examination for discovery in an expropriation proceeding.

The claimant argued the questions were beyond the permitted scope and irrelevant, but subsequently provided some answers voluntarily.

Given the proximity to the hearing date, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, ruling that the disputed matters could be addressed through broad cross-examination at the hearing, with specific evidentiary objections to be ruled upon as they arise.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 330-unit high-rise mixed-use building.

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

The Tribunal also scheduled an eight-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals brought by Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. against the City of Hamilton for failing to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment applications for an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and organizations.

A request for party status by Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc. was denied, as the Tribunal found their involvement would prejudice the appellant and not assist in adjudicating the issues pertaining to the subject lands.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 15-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to a community association and participant status to two other entities on consent.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled for February 2025.

The appellant appealed the City of Burlington Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an office use on the ground floor of a downtown building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to revise the application to specifically permit a real estate brokerage office, subject to conditions ensuring an active store frontage.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, is consistent with provincial policies, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the revised minor variance was approved.

Metrolinx brought a motion for directions regarding undertakings and refusals from the examination for discovery of the claimant's representative in an expropriation proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered the claimant to produce financial statements and tax returns for the three years prior to the expropriation, finding them relevant to determining the highest and best use of the property.

The Tribunal also permitted Metrolinx to conduct a further examination of up to one hour regarding the financial documents and certain concept plans.

Other requests for further production were dismissed.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Region of Peel's approval of Official Plan Amendments 142, 143, and 144 to the City of Mississauga's Official Plan, which relate to Major Transit Station Areas.

The Tribunal granted Observing Party status to the Region of Peel, Non-Appellant Party status to Hensall Holdings and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and Participant status to Trillium Health Partners.

A motion by the City to confirm the scope of the appeals and bring unappealed portions of the OPAs into effect was adjourned to allow the parties time to review a revised draft order and compendium.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Grmada Holdings Inc. from the City of Markham's failure to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and participant status to one residents' group, while denying other participant requests due to non-appearance.

The Tribunal also resolved a dispute over the wording of the Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing for May 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the city for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 15-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Participant status to several individuals on consent.

Requests for Party status by two resident associations were deferred to a subsequent CMC.

A five-day merit hearing was scheduled for February 2025.

At a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal for the municipality's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application, the parties advised they were close to a settlement.

The parties requested a three-day merit hearing be scheduled in the fall of 2024 out of an abundance of caution, pending a decision on a neighbouring property's application.

The Tribunal granted the request and scheduled the merit hearing for September 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings for an appeal by Greenline Renovations Plus Ltd. against the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The proposed development involves two midrise mixed-use buildings at 65-81 McCormack Street.

The order sets out the hearing dates, procedural deadlines, and the final Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a transit-oriented development at 88 Steeles Avenue West.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, which permits two high-rise residential towers, represents good planning and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal policies.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle on an interim basis, contingent on the fulfillment of specified conditions.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the city for failing to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to the conservation authority and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing for January 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for land compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the Respondent's use of the Claimant's property for the construction of the Milliken GO Station.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a consent procedural order and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits for January 2025.

The City of Burlington brought an uncontested motion for partial approval of its new Official Plan.

The motion sought approval for policies that were either not subject to appeal or modified to reflect existing site-specific approvals from the 1997 Official Plan.

Relying on the uncontested expert planning evidence of the City's Senior Planner, the Tribunal found that the policies satisfied all statutory tests, were consistent with provincial policies, represented good planning, and were in the public interest.

The motion for partial approval was granted.

The appellants appealed Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision to deny their claims for 34 construction defects in their new home.

While Tarion agreed the defects were covered under warranty, it denied the claims because the appellants failed to provide the builder reasonable access to the home to complete repairs during the post-conciliation repair period.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellants' demands—including three-hour repair windows, criminal background checks for workers, and refusal of hotel accommodations—were unreasonable and interfered with the builder's statutory right to mitigate damages.

The appeal was dismissed and the claims were denied.

The City of Vaughan brought motions for settlement approval regarding several appeals of its new Comprehensive Zoning By-law and Transition By-law.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed site-specific amendments to the by-laws were consistent with provincial policies and represented good planning.

The Tribunal approved the settlements, allowed the appeals in part to implement the site-specific exceptions, and deemed the by-laws in force for certain lands where appeals had been withdrawn.

The applicant appealed a minor variance application under section 45(12) of the Planning Act to permit a dog kennel on the subject property.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal issued a decision approving the revised variance.

The Tribunal subsequently issued this amending decision under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a typographical error in the original decision, clarifying that the animal kennel is permitted within 1.40 metres from any lot line.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit an animal kennel on an agricultural property.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit the kennel with a reduced setback of 1.40 metres from any lot line, subject to conditions limiting the number of dogs and regulating noise.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised variance satisfies the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it facilitates a permitted rural land use and ensures adequate separation from sensitive uses.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variance was authorized subject to the agreed conditions.