M. Helfand

The Applicant brought a motion for costs against the Appellant following the dismissal of the Appellant's zoning by-law appeal.

The Applicant alleged that the Appellant engaged in unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith conduct, including allegedly offering to withdraw the appeal for a sum of money and making unsubstantiated complaints to the police.

The Tribunal denied the motion for costs, finding that while the Appellant's conduct was marginally inappropriate, the evidence was inconclusive and did not meet the threshold for a cost award under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The appellant appealed the Urban Hamilton Official Plan regarding the application of Natural Heritage System policies to its site.

Following settlement discussions, the parties agreed to an Official Plan Amendment that removes the Natural Heritage System and Significant Woodlands overlays from a small portion of the site to facilitate a residential development, while protecting 1.15 hectares of woodland.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the amendment, finding it consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeal of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment that permitted a 4-storey residential apartment building.

The appellant requested an adjournment at the hearing to retain experts, which the Tribunal denied as untimely.

The Tribunal granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the appeal failed to disclose any apparent land use planning grounds, lacked expert evidence, and had no reasonable prospect of success given the proposal's consistency with provincial and municipal intensification policies.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 12-storey mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal to the Tribunal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the zoning by-law was amended accordingly.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the City of Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and Transitional By-law No. 039-2022.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities, consolidated the proceedings for both by-laws, and set deadlines for filing comments.

Additionally, the Tribunal approved a settlement regarding the property at 4603 and 4611 Highway 7, amending the zoning by-law to correct site-specific development standards based on uncontested planning evidence.

This was the first Case Management Conference for appeals against an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a residential development in South Huron.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several adjacent residents, noted the withdrawal of one appellant's appeal, scheduled a 10-day merits hearing for May 2023, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

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

The parties reached a settlement on a revised 11-storey proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the settlement in principle, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the zoning by-law and a Section 37 agreement.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss the appellant's appeals of two Zoning By-law Amendments intended to permit a residential development.

The appellant, a self-represented neighbourhood resident, raised concerns regarding incompatibility, traffic, and housing diversity, but failed to provide supporting professional evidence or demonstrate how the by-laws conflicted with provincial policies or the official plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed the appeals, finding they disclosed no apparent land use planning grounds and had no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant appealed the Town of Whitby's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application for an 8-storey mixed-use building.

Through Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a reduced 3-6 storey building with increased setbacks and stepbacks.

Relying on the uncontroverted affidavit evidence of both parties' land use planners, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and local official plans, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the draft instruments in principle, withholding its final order pending finalization of the documents.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passage of a zoning by-law amendment intended to facilitate a residential and commercial subdivision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal 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 applicant sought costs of $109,056.02 against the Town following successful appeals to amend a zoning by-law and approve a site plan.

The applicant alleged the Town engaged in unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, and bad faith conduct by delaying its issues list, enacting an interim control by-law to seek adjournments, and failing to present evidence at the hearing.

The Tribunal found no clearly unreasonable conduct, noting the issues list was submitted on time, the adjournment requests were brought with notice and raised substantive issues, and the failure to call witnesses avoided duplication and made for a more efficient hearing.

The motion for costs was denied.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal concerning the designation of certain properties under the Ontario Heritage Act and the interpretation of provincial and municipal heritage planning provisions.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions of law relating to the Tribunal's consideration of the Ontario Heritage Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and the municipal Official Plan.

Costs of the motion were fixed and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.