Micah Goldstein

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an expropriation compensation claim by the claimant against the respondent for lands acquired for the Ontario Line subway system.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day video hearing to commence on May 31, 2027, and issued a Procedural Order governing the pre-hearing steps, including document exchange, mediation, discoveries, and expert witness meetings.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation following an expropriation of lands by the Town of Oakville.

The parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order and requested a 10-day hearing.

The Tribunal scheduled the hearing for December 2025 and issued the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a technical or typographical error in its previous decision issued on June 18, 2024.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal replaced Attachment 1 in its entirety.

In all other respects, the original decision remains the same.

The appellants appealed the adoption of Official Plan Amendment 11 (OPA 11) by the County of Grey, which prescribed policies for future growth.

The appeals specifically concerned the identification of Future Secondary Plan Areas.

The parties reached a settlement and jointly proposed modifications to OPA 11.

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised OPA 11 had regard to matters of provincial interest, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and represented good land use planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved OPA 11 as modified.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from the partial expropriation of a commercial property operating as a Tim Hortons.

The parties agreed to a four-day video hearing and submitted a draft Procedural Order.

The Tribunal directed revisions to the timeline and subsequently issued the finalized Procedural Order governing the hearing on the merits.

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 of the City of Hamilton's approval of official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicant without objection.

The City of Hamilton did not appear and indicated it would not participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing and approved the procedural order and issues list.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals against Grey County's Official Plan Amendment 11, the Town of Hanover requested party status.

The appellant, Magwood Family Farms, opposed the request, arguing the Town's involvement would be duplicative and unnecessary.

The Tribunal directed that the request for party status be determined via a formal motion at a later date.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions regarding proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and a draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate residential development and the retention of a heritage dwelling.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the proposed instruments.

The Tribunal found the proposed instruments consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part, and the instruments were approved.

The appellant brought a motion to strike several issues from the Issues List attached to the Procedural Order for an upcoming hearing regarding an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The appellant argued that the non-appellant parties and the City were not calling expert evidence to support certain issues.

The Tribunal struck the issues raised by the non-appellant parties as they did not intend to call evidence, but retained the City's geological and environmental issues, noting the City's land use planning witness would address them.

One transportation issue was struck on consent.