Max Beck Rubin

A first Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Caledon HL Developments Inc. against the Town of Caledon's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendments for an industrial warehouse development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and participant status to QuadReal Property Group Limited Partnership.

A procedural order was approved, and dates were set for a second Case Management Conference and a three-week merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Airfield Developments Inc. and Airfield II Developments Inc. for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment due to the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Peel and participant status to two individuals.

The parties agreed to explore mediation, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled via telephone to discuss a draft Procedural Order and potential hearing dates.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal under section 22(7) of the Planning Act due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on an official plan amendment application within the statutory timeframe.

The proposed amendment sought to facilitate a residential development of approximately 1,282 units.

At the first case management conference, the Tribunal granted party and participant status to several requesting entities on consent.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to file a draft procedural order and scheduled a second case management conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for appeals by Amar Group of Developments Limited and Valleywood Resident Association against the Town of Caledon's extension of an Interim Control By-law.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a local landowners group.

Amar and the Town reached a settlement and were directed to request a written hearing.

Valleywood was directed to discuss its appeal with the Town, as its concerns primarily related to provincial highways rather than the by-law itself, with the Town indicating it may file a motion to dismiss if the appeal is not withdrawn.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant for the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application within the prescribed time.

The application seeks to permit an industrial and warehousing facility.

The Tribunal granted conditional party status to the Region of Peel to monitor servicing issues, and participant status to a nearby resident.

A three-day video hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was approved.

The appellants appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing their application to sever a property into two estate residential lots.

The appellants argued the property should be recognized as a rural settlement area, while the municipality maintained the lands were in a prime agricultural area and subject to Greenbelt Plan protections.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the property was within a defined settlement area and concluding the proposed severance was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and did not conform to the Greenbelt Act or the municipal official plan.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding a request by the applicant to determine the value of land for a cash-in-lieu of parkland condition.

The parties agreed to a revised Issues List proposed by the Town.

The Tribunal approved the Issues List, scheduled a three-day video hearing, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The respondent father brought a motion for a temporary nesting order and a section 30 assessment regarding the parties' 9-year-old child, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder.

The applicant mother opposed the nesting order and sought exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The court granted the father's motion, finding that a nesting arrangement would minimize disruption to the child pending a full assessment.

The court also ordered a section 30 assessment and dismissed the father's request for a specific contact order for the paternal grandparents under the new provisions of the Divorce Act.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking orders related to the respondent father's alleged alcohol consumption while driving with their child, including the use of an alcohol monitoring device and third-party transportation.

The mother's concerns stemmed from an incident where the child reported erratic driving and the father drinking.

The father denied the allegations, asserting he consumed only one glass of wine and that erratic driving was due to another vehicle.

The court found insufficient objective evidence to substantiate the mother's claims of alcohol addiction or to justify the imposition of an alcohol monitoring device or third-party transport.

However, the father's undertaking not to consume alcohol 12 hours prior to any access exchange was formalized into a temporary court order.

The court also granted the mother leave to file an application and scheduled a case conference.