M. Cook

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for a laneway suite.

Prior to the hearing, the application was amended to reduce the number of variances to one, relating to building length.

The tribunal found the amendment minor and proceeded without further notice.

The tribunal determined the proposed building met the definition of a laneway suite despite a 6-metre setback from the lane.

Applying the four tests for a minor variance, the tribunal preferred the appellant's expert planning evidence over the neighbour's objections, finding the variance maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable, and minor in impact.

The appeal was allowed and the variance authorized subject to conditions regarding landscaping.

Caledon Residences Inc. (CRI) brought a motion for costs against the Appellant and the Town of Caledon, arguing that their last-minute withdrawal of a draft plan of subdivision appeal was unreasonable and caused CRI to incur wasted preparation costs.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the withdrawal was the result of ongoing, confidential settlement discussions and was communicated to CRI in a timely manner once finalized.

The Tribunal held that the conduct of the Appellant and the Town did not meet the high threshold of being clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith required to justify an award of costs.

The appellant appealed the Town's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 21-lot residential development.

At the hearing, the appellant withdrew the Draft Plan appeal after reaching a settlement with the Town.

A third party objected to the withdrawal and requested the Tribunal withhold its order on the ZBA pending a cost sharing agreement.

The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal and dismissed the third party's request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to mandate a private cost sharing agreement.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the ZBA, finding it consistent with provincial policies and the Town's Official Plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Spire Properties Ltd. for the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 24-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reported productive strides in narrowing the issues but requested more time.

On consent, the Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions and further scope the issues list.

This decision arises from a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Vaughan's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several individuals and entities without objection from the parties.

The parties advised the Tribunal of an ongoing settlement proposal that City Council has accepted.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit a second-storey addition to an existing dwelling and the conversion of a detached rear garage into a garden suite.

The applicant revised the proposal before the tribunal, reducing the height and eliminating some variances.

The tribunal found that the revised proposal, including the garden suite, maintained the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's land use planner, finding that the garden suite represented a compatible infill development that would not create unacceptable adverse impacts on privacy or overlook.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and minor variances.

At the scheduled hearing, counsel for the appellant requested that the hearing be converted to a prehearing conference to allow the parties to continue settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, stood down to allow discussions, and ultimately adjourned the hearing sine die, providing directions for scheduling a settlement hearing or a contested hearing depending on the outcome of the discussions.

The Applicant/Appellant requested the scheduling of a Hearing on the Merits for appeals concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 660-unit residential development.

The Town and other parties requested a further Case Management Conference (CMC) to review recently submitted revised plans and studies.

The Tribunal found it premature to schedule a hearing without knowing the narrowed issues and directed that a further CMC be held to allow the parties time to review the revisions and potentially reach a settlement.

A prehearing conference was held regarding an appeal from the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances to permit alterations to an existing dwelling and the construction of a garden suite.

The Tribunal identified the parties and participants, clarified representation, and directed participants who had not yet filed or served their Participant Witness Statements to do so by a specified date without introducing new issues.

The Tribunal also determined that mediation would not be pursued and directed staff to schedule two additional hearing days.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Bond Head Properties Eight Inc. against an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment approved by the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury and County of Simcoe.

The amendments would facilitate the development of a trucking company head office and warehouse facility.

The Tribunal granted participant status to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority on consent.

As the parties are engaged in settlement discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 9, 2024, which may be converted to a settlement hearing.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control Approval for a proposed 49-storey mixed-use building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 19-day video hearing to commence in October 2024.

The Tribunal also approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 39-storey tower.

The Tribunal approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a seven-day video hearing to commence on May 15, 2024.

The applicant appealed the Township's refusal to amend the zoning by-law to permit the replacement of a legal non-complying residential dwelling on Morlock Island.

At the case management conference, the parties presented a settlement agreement.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Township's Official Plan, noting that the development would have no negative impact on significant natural heritage features.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law amendment was approved.

Libro Credit Union brought a motion to determine a priority dispute over garnished funds.

Environmental Waterproofing Inc. had garnished funds from Jokey Plastics to satisfy a judgment against Huron Tract Holdings Inc. Libro claimed priority based on a perfected security interest under the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA).

Environmental argued that Libro's claim was statute-barred and would result in unjust enrichment.

The court found that Libro's security interest was deemed continuously perfected under the PPSA and took priority over the garnishment.

The court also held that Libro's claim was not statute-barred and that there was no unjust enrichment.

The garnished funds were ordered to be paid to Libro.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the municipality to facilitate the development of apartment buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal of one 3-storey apartment building with 41 units, requiring an amendment to permit front yard parking.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law in accordance with the settlement.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's adoption of the Garden District Heritage Conservation District designation and Plan.

Based on uncontroverted expert evidence in heritage planning, urban design, and land use planning, the Tribunal found the revised Plan consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and City Official Plan, and appropriate under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appeals were allowed in part to replace the original Plan with the revised settlement version.

The defendant Estate Trustee brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action against the Estate, arguing it was an abuse of process because it duplicated claims already raised in an ongoing application challenging the validity of the deceased's will.

The plaintiff had commenced the separate action to include claims of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the solicitor who drafted the will.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the claims against the Estate were duplicative, the plaintiff was not a vexatious litigant and the multiplicity of proceedings could be remedied by an order to try the action together with the trial of issues in the application.

The Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical error in its previous decision dated June 22, 2021.

The amendment revised paragraphs 18 and 20 to clarify that Minutes of Settlement between the appellant and Ed Mirvish Enterprises Ltd. would shortly be executed, and that the Final Order would be withheld until those Minutes were signed and other conditions were addressed.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law passed by the municipality to permit the development of two 2-storey apartment buildings.

The Tribunal found that the by-law was based on sound planning principles, complied with all relevant provincial policies and the Official Plan, and would result in no negative impact.

The appeal was dismissed for lacking planning merit.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 59-storey mixed-use building.

Following negotiations, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal that addressed heritage conservation, height, and built form issues.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plan policies, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the settlement in principle, withholding its final order until outstanding conditions were satisfied.