Meaghan Barrett

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 183 and the Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for July 2023 to allow the City to finalize a revised HCD plan and for parties to scope issues.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a merits hearing, finding it premature.

A request by a new property owner to assume a withdrawn appeal was deferred, with a scheduled motion date vacated on consent of the parties.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and refusal of a Heritage Permit, to permit a 10-storey student residence.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent, scheduling a 15-day video hearing to commence on September 18, 2023.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a draft plan of subdivision and a refusal to permit wetland relocation, the Tribunal granted Party status to the City of Hamilton and Participant status to several individuals in the Conservation Authorities Act appeal.

The Tribunal also ordered that the two appeals be heard together in a single phase, rather than consolidated, to ensure efficiency while avoiding prejudice to the parties.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to allow a 6-storey addition to an existing 5-storey office building.

At the first Case Management Conference, an adjacent property owner requested party status due to concerns about snow and water runoff and development potential impacts.

The Tribunal deferred the party status request to allow the parties to engage in mediation and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for February 2023.

The appellant appealed a zoning by-law amendment passed by the municipality intended to regulate disruptive short-term rentals ('party houses') in low-density residential zones.

The amendment defined 'Commercial Accommodation' as rentals of 28 days or less.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and repealed the by-law, finding it did not represent good planning as it would unintentionally render illegal the benign, traditional practice of renting cottages for 1-2 weeks.

The Tribunal noted the municipality could enforce existing zoning against disruptive commercial operators and that the issue would be better addressed through the upcoming Official Plan review.

The City of Toronto adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 486 (King Spadina Secondary Plan), which was appealed by multiple parties.

At this Case Management Conference, the Tribunal was updated on the status of a revised Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for October 2022 and a twelve-day merit hearing for August 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on official plan and zoning by-law amendments, and refusal of a heritage permit, for a proposed 10-storey student residence.

Participant status was granted to a neighbouring residence concerned about shadowing impacts.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day contested hearing to commence on September 18, 2023.

The applicant appealed the failure of the County of Peterborough and the Township of Selwyn to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The applicant sought to recognize and permit the existing legal non-conforming use of a motor vehicle repair shop and to allow for a building addition.

The municipalities argued that land use compatibility concerns had not been adequately addressed and that mitigation measures should be resolved at the policy stage rather than the site plan stage.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed amendments were consistent with provincial policies and that any impacts on neighbouring residences could be adequately mitigated through a robust site plan agreement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the 2010 Vaughan Official Plan and related site-specific development applications.

The Tribunal granted revisions to the Procedural Order for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan hearing, deferring its start by one week to allow experts to review recently circulated transportation studies and development plans.

The Tribunal also granted Party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on Appeal 166.

Finally, the Tribunal allowed a settlement motion by the City of Vaughan, approving modifications to the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Secondary Plan for a specific site, finding the modifications represented good planning and satisfied statutory requirements.

At a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal to permit the relocation of a wetland, the Ontario Land Tribunal addressed requests for Party and Participant status.

Environmental Defence was granted Party status over the appellant's request for deferral, as it demonstrated a genuine interest and ability to assist the Tribunal.

Twenty-two individuals were granted Participant status without opposition.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the issues list and address the anticipated consolidation with a forthcoming draft plan of subdivision appeal.

The applicant residents' associations sought leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision that approved a revised development proposal to demolish three houses and build a low-rise apartment in a Heritage Conservation District.

The applicants argued the tribunal made errors of law by deferring to the City's demolition approval under the Ontario Heritage Act, treating demolition as conservation, and failing to assign a higher heritage rating to one of the houses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the tribunal applied the correct legal tests and that the applicants' challenges were directed at findings of fact and mixed fact and law, which are not subject to appeal.