Michael Mahoney

The City of Toronto brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 5-day merit hearing regarding a zoning by-law amendment appeal.

The City argued that its planning witness was on medical leave and its urban design witness was on approved vacation.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the City had sufficient notice of the witnesses' unavailability to arrange for alternatives or raise the issue earlier.

The Tribunal held that granting the adjournment would unfairly prejudice the appellant through delay and additional costs, and ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by 4949 Bathurst GP Limited against the City of Toronto's Zoning By-law No. 1114-2025.

The appeal concerns a proposed 39-storey mixed-use building.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of witness statements, expert reports, and other pre-hearing requirements, and establishes the issues list for the 5-day video hearing scheduled to commence on May 25, 2026.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City's passing of a Zoning By-law Amendment that reduced the height, density, and residential gross floor area of a proposed 39-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits to commence by video conference.

The appellant objected to the City of Toronto's designation of the property at 15 Elm Street under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The appellant argued the property, a heavily altered vernacular building, did not meet the criteria for cultural heritage value under O. Reg. 9/06.

The City contended the property was a rare surviving Confederation-era house-form building that contributed to the understanding of the historic immigrant neighbourhood known as The Ward.

The Tribunal found the property met three of the four criteria, concluding it was a rare example of vernacular Georgian architecture, yielded information about working-class immigrant residents, and supported the character of the area.

The appeal was allowed in part only to the extent that the property did not meet the criterion of being historically linked to its surroundings, and the City was ordered to amend the designation by-law accordingly.

The applicant appealed under s. 42(10) of the Planning Act seeking a determination of the cash-in-lieu of parkland required for a proposed redevelopment.

At a case management conference, the parties requested late fall dates to allow for the exchange of reports and potential mediation.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing for November 2024 and issued a 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 development at 181-191 Eglinton Avenue East.

The parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal consisting of 52-storey and 20-storey towers.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the settlement proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The claimant brought a motion to compel the respondent to adhere to the Procedural Order and to amend the hearing date due to the respondent's delay in an expropriation compensation proceeding.

The respondent did not file responding materials and agreed to the requested relief, except for mandatory mediation.

The Tribunal vacated the original hearing date, scheduled a new five-day hearing for June 2025, and issued an amended Procedural Order.

The Tribunal declined to order mandatory mediation but forwarded the claimant's request to the OLT Mediation group.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the appellant against the City of Toronto's designation by-law, which designated the subject property as having cultural heritage value.

The Tribunal granted Party status to the adjacent property owner and Participant status to a local community group.

The Tribunal also directed the parties to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a three-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 17 Elm GP Inc. against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Westerkirk Capital Inc., and The Hospital for Sick Children, and participant status to TSCC2920.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence by video on January 13, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application.

The application seeks to permit a 38-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal received an update on settlement discussions and approved the Procedural Order on consent of the parties, maintaining a 10-day hearing schedule.

The appellant appealed under subsections 42(10) and 42(12) of the Planning Act regarding the determination of the value of land for a development in Toronto.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached.

The appellant subsequently confirmed the settlement was completed and withdrew the appeals.

The Tribunal closed its file and made no order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a proposed 74-storey mixed-use building.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal ordered the adjournment of the 10-day merits hearing from April 2, 2024, to May 27, 2024, and issued a revised Procedural Order establishing new timelines for the exchange of evidence and other pre-hearing requirements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Marlin Realty Ltd. against the City of Toronto for failing to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 38-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to five entities and participant status to one individual on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for February 2024, and a ten-day hearing on the merits was scheduled for July 2024.

Minto (Mimico) Inc. brought a motion for directions to the Ontario Land Tribunal, seeking a determination that its site plan applications submitted to the City of Toronto on April 27, 2023, were complete.

The City argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because Minto had not attended a mandatory pre-application consultation (PAC) required by a municipal by-law.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under the City of Toronto Act, holding that a municipal PAC by-law cannot override the statutory scheme for determining complete applications or delay the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered that Minto's applications were complete as of April 27, 2023.

The applicant appealed the City's calculation of park levies for a residential development under the Planning Act.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties presented a draft Procedural Order and requested hearing dates.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day hearing on the merits and issued the Procedural Order to govern the pre-hearing process.

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

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

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

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference for an appeal by Menkes 771 Yonge Inc. against the City of Toronto's valuation for a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment.

The parties indicated potential settlement discussions.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing for December 2023 and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List submitted by the parties.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a mixed-use development at 102 Berkeley Street.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 35-storey building that includes an expanded public park along the street frontage to maintain the low-rise character.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the zoning by-law amendment in principle, withholding its final order until several conditions are met.

The claimant brought an appeal under the Expropriations Act claiming injurious affection resulting in personal and business losses.

The City of Toronto filed reply pleadings arguing that the works were not attributable to the City and that the claim was statute-barred.

To determine these threshold issues, the Ontario Land Tribunal ordered the City to bring a written motion.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 15-storey residential apartment building.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that productive settlement negotiations were underway and a settlement report might be presented to City Council.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference to proceed either as a settlement hearing or a hearing on the merits.