Max Beck Rubin

The appellant appealed a by-law passed by the City of Vaughan designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At a case management conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were reviewing minutes of settlement and requested additional time to finalize an agreement.

The Tribunal granted the request and ordered the parties to provide a status update by June 15, 2026.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a mid-rise residential development in Kleinburg.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement that reduced the building heights and density, and introduced holding provisions to address heritage, servicing, and design concerns.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the planning instruments as modified.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (CMC) regarding appeals by the applicant for the municipality's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications within statutory timelines.

The Tribunal deferred rulings on participant status requests to clarify potential duplication.

A second CMC was scheduled for May 11, 2026, to finalize status requests and review the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to decide on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Temporary Use Zoning By-law, and the City's adoption of a by-law rezoning the subject site to Agricultural.

The site, currently operating illegally as an intermodal facility, is located in an area planned for future infrastructure and employment uses.

The Tribunal found a direct conflict between the York Region Official Plan, which designates the site as Employment Area, and the Vaughan Official Plan, which designates it as Agricultural.

The Tribunal held that the Regional plan prevails and that the proposed instruments appropriately bring the local plan into conformity while permitting a temporary use that supports efficient goods movement.

The appeals were allowed in part, repealing the City's by-law and approving the appellant's draft instruments in principle.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a consent application and two minor variance applications intended to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot with reduced minimum lot area and frontage on lands designated as prime agricultural and within the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The applicant sought to sever a parcel containing an accessory agricultural dwelling from the retained parcel containing the primary dwelling and agricultural operations.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding that the proposed severance would inappropriately fragment agricultural lands and that the accessory dwelling could not be legally separated from the principal agricultural use under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

The Tribunal also found that the requested minor variances failed the four-part test under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered appeals regarding a proposed 21-storey residential tower in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal granted the appellant's request to hear an appeal against the City's Comprehensive Zoning By-law together with the current appeals.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled for July 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's by-law designating a property under the Ontario Heritage Act.

At the merit hearing, the parties agreed they were not ready to proceed due to outstanding jurisdictional issues and the pending preparation of a revised cultural heritage evaluation report that could lead to a settlement.

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing and scheduled a case management conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2631622 Ontario Corp. concerning the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications, and an appeal against By-law No. 174-2024.

The Tribunal reviewed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List, directing revisions to ensure issues were properly tied to specific policies.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled, conditional upon the parties submitting the finalized draft Procedural Order and Issues List by the specified deadline.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a revised development of 104 stacked back-to-back townhouses, reduced from the originally proposed 15-storey building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, as well as an appeal against the adoption of a site-specific by-law.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed 21-storey residential tower.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three individuals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to consider consolidation of appeals and finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in a previous decision dated April 29, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal amended paragraph 10 of the decision to reflect the correct date for a scheduled one-day Case Management Conference as Thursday, June 27, 2024.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal for a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 12-storey mixed-use building and townhouses.

The parties provided an update on the status of the finalized Zoning By-law Amendment and the remaining holding provisions related to sewage capacity, noise assessment, and environmental classification.

A related motion concerning the completeness of the Site Plan Application was paused pending the resolution of these issues.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for June 2024.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications to permit a restaurant with a drive-through.

At the second case management conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 10-day video hearing and approved the procedural order.

The parties were also directed to provide an update regarding a related heritage demolition permit application.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals concerning the municipality's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to be heard together, granted participant status to a neighboring landowner, and scheduled further conferences to address a party status request by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and potential settlements.

A four-week merit hearing was scheduled for March 2025.

The Town of Caledon appealed the Committee of Adjustment's approval of a consent for a lot addition and a minor variance for reduced lot frontage and area.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted affidavit evidence of the Town's planner, the Tribunal found that the proposed consent, subject to conditions, conforms to the Greenbelt Plan, Provincial Policy Statement, and local official plans, and protects the Natural Heritage System.

The Tribunal allowed the variance appeal, noting the variance was no longer required, and approved the consent subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The Town of Caledon passed an Interim Control By-law extension to prohibit development while completing transit planning studies.

The appellant appealed the extension as it applied to its property, where it proposed an industrial development.

The parties reached a settlement to exempt the property from the by-law.

The Tribunal endorsed the settlement, finding on uncontested planning evidence that the proposed development was consistent with provincial policies and municipal official plans, and would not negatively impact the major transit station area.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Airfield Developments Inc. and Airfield II Developments Inc. against the Town of Caledon's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The parties reported that private mediation is ongoing and requested more time to resolve or narrow the issues.

The Tribunal deferred requests for participant status from adjacent landowners and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for February 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the Town's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a proposed drive-through restaurant.

The Tribunal granted participant status to eight individuals who raised concerns about traffic, lighting, and litter.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List, and to address a potential appeal regarding a Heritage Demolition Permit.

The applicants brought an application claiming that normal farm practices were restricted by a Town of Caledon by-law.

Following a settlement and the withdrawal of individual applicants, a dispute arose over the ownership and control of the remaining corporate applicant, Love, Logic, Compassion Farms Inc. At a pre-hearing conference, the individuals involved stated they did not wish to continue with a hearing on the merits but refused to file a formal notice of withdrawal.

The Board found the application to be abandoned and frivolous, and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to Rule 8 of the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure.