M. Joblin

The Tribunal convened a status update regarding appeals against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a mixed-use redevelopment.

The parties reported that Tribunal-led mediation resulted in a resolution in principle, but further discussions and municipal council authorization are required.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a written status update by December 1, 2025, rather than scheduling a further Case Management Conference at this time.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 78-unit townhouse development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with provincial policy, conformed to applicable official plans, and represented good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the agreed-upon amendments.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit a high-density mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement that was endorsed by City Council following successful mediation.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing but the parties required more time to finalize the planning instruments.

The Tribunal issued an order vacating the hearing dates and directing the parties to submit the finalized planning instruments by June 30, 2024.

The applicants appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that an agreement had been reached regarding access to a neighbouring property for technical work, resolving the need for previously scheduled motions.

The Tribunal released the motion dates, confirmed the withdrawal of a party, and ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending a status update or Notice of Readiness.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals against the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The parties required more time to negotiate the applicant's access to a neighbouring business's premises and data for technical work.

The Tribunal released previously scheduled motion dates and ordered that any necessary motions regarding access proceed in writing, setting a schedule for the submission of materials and scheduling a brief update appearance.

The parties requested a Telephone Conference Call to address the scheduling of a 15-day hearing regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed mixed-use development.

The applicant required additional time to complete technical work, which necessitated access to a neighbouring property owned by Mother Parkers Tea and Coffee Inc. The Tribunal released the previously scheduled hearing dates, save for two days reserved for potential motions, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to determine next steps and address any outstanding issues regarding access to the neighbouring property.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of Uxbridge and the Regional Municipality of Durham to make decisions on applications for Official Plan Amendments, a Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a 541-unit residential development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement endorsing the approval of the applications.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, and applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals and approved the planning instruments.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the Southwest Georgetown Landowners Group Inc. against the Town of Halton Hills' Development Charge By-law and Parkland Conveyance By-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day merits hearing to be heard together and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Pickering's Official Plan Amendment No. 38, which aims to enable redevelopment and intensification of the Kingston Road Corridor.

The parties discussed a phased hearing approach, with a Phase 1 area-wide hearing followed by site-specific hearings.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a third Case Management Conference to finalize the procedural order and schedule the merit hearing.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Pickering's Official Plan Amendment No. 38, which aims to enable redevelopment and intensification of the Kingston Road Corridor.

The Tribunal granted party status to 705 Kingston Road Ltd. and Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. on consent.

The parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and a second Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to approve minor variances for the construction of a detached dwelling.

Following mediation and a subsequent settlement among the parties, revised variances were submitted.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence that the revised variances met the four tests under the Planning Act, the Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal in part and approved the revised variances subject to conditions.

The appellants appealed the Regional Municipality of Halton's new Development Charges By-law No. 25-22.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested Tribunal-led mediation to reach a settlement or reduce the issues list.

A request for party status by the Southwest Georgetown Landowners Group Inc. was deferred to the next CMC, pending the outcome of the mediation.

The Tribunal directed the parties to file an agreed Procedural Order if a hearing on the merits remains necessary after mediation.

The Township of Uxbridge brought a motion requesting that the hearing of appeals by the applicant regarding official plan amendments, zoning by-law amendments, and a plan of subdivision be phased.

The Township proposed that the first phase deal with threshold issues of servicing allocation and sewage capacity.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the applications should be considered comprehensively and that phasing would cause significant delay and redundancy in expert evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that there would be ample crossover in expert witnesses and that it was appropriate to hear the comprehensive applications together.

The Applicant appealed the Township's and Region's failure to make decisions on applications for official plan amendments, a zoning by-law amendment, and a draft plan of subdivision for a 588-unit residential development.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to three neighbouring landowners based on proximity and shared issues regarding servicing and land use compatibility.

The Tribunal also scheduled a motion brought by the Township to determine whether the hearing should be phased to address servicing as a threshold issue, and provisionally scheduled a four-week hearing on the merits.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision for a residential development in the Hamlet of Claremont.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the applicable official plans, and satisfied the criteria under the Planning Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, amending the zoning by-law and approving the draft plan of subdivision subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the passing of a zoning by-law amendment by the Township of Scugog, which rezoned the subject lands to permit a self-storage facility.

Prior to the scheduled four-day hearing of the merits, the parties requested an adjournment to proceed with a Case Management Conference instead, in order to scope and refine the issues.

The Tribunal granted the request, scheduled a new four-day hearing, and directed the parties to submit a Draft Procedural Order with a defined issues list.

The applicant brought a motion during a Case Management Conference to exclude certain issues proposed by a party, David Masters, from the Procedural Order's Issues List.

The applicant argued the issues offended the Clergy principle, which the Tribunal had previously determined applied to the 1990 applications.

The Tribunal agreed to exclude issues testing conformity against the current Official Plan, as Clergy dictates the applications be assessed against policies in force at the time of application.

An issue questioning the statutory status of the 1991 Claremont Development Plan was rephrased and permitted to remain.

The Procedural Order was approved as amended.

Appeals were brought against the Town of Innisfil's Official Plan regarding the designation of certain lands.

DLR appealed the Agricultural Area designation on its lands, seeking a Rural Area designation to permit development.

Nextnine appealed the Key Natural Heritage Features designation on its lands, seeking a Parks and Open Space designation to permit a golf course expansion.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, finding that the Town's designations were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, conformed to the Growth Plan 2020, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, and the County of Simcoe Official Plan.

The Milton Phase 4 (West) Landowners Group Inc. and the Milton P4 Trafalgar Landowners Group Inc. (collectively MP4) brought a motion for party status in appeals concerning the Town of Halton Hills' Official Plan Amendment No. 32.

MP4 argued that the Regional Municipality of Halton's Natural Heritage System policies, which were modified in OPA 32, would affect their lands in the Town of Milton.

The Town of Halton Hills and the Region opposed the motion, arguing that MP4's lands were physically distant, they had not participated in the public process, and their addition would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that MP4 did not have a direct interest in the proceeding, their presence was not necessary, and adding them would not be in the public interest.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals by Claremont Development Corporation against the City of Pickering's failure to make decisions on subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications for a 71-lot residential development.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence in August 2022.