M. Longo

The City of Toronto expropriated a property owned by the Multanis.

Dramel Limited and other entities held charges against the property.

Dramel brought a motion to determine its priority rights to a section 25 settlement offer made by the City.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal adjourned Dramel's motion to proceed in writing and issued a Procedural Order to govern the future conduct of the compensation hearing, despite the original owners' ongoing difficulties in retaining legal counsel.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed 55-storey mixed-use development in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Port Authority and participant status to PS Canada Company ULC.

The City raised a jurisdictional issue regarding pending heritage designations under the Ontario Heritage Act.

On consent, the Tribunal scheduled a nine-day hearing commencing November 30, 2026, and directed the parties to provide a status update by March 2, 2026, regarding the anticipated heritage applications and potential consolidation.

The applicant applied for a consent to sever properties and subsequently an appeal was filed to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) due to the Committee of Adjustment's failure to make a decision within 90 days.

The appellant failed to attend a virtual prehearing and remained unresponsive to communications.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the appeal without a hearing, which was granted.

Following the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Dismissal and the expiration of the 10-day period for written submissions without any response, the TLAB formally dismissed the appeal and closed the file.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss an appeal regarding a consent to sever application that had been languishing at the Toronto Local Appeal Body since 2021.

The subject properties were designated under the Ontario Heritage Act shortly after the appeal was filed, thwarting the original purpose of the severance.

The appellant failed to respond to TLAB communications, missed procedural deadlines, and did not respond to the motion to dismiss.

The TLAB found the appellant had abandoned the appeal and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to section 53(31) of the Planning Act and TLAB Rule 9.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's By-law 1368-2024, which designated the West Queen West Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal granted participant status to three community organizations on consent.

The Tribunal also scheduled a nine-day video hearing for February 2026 and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a City of Toronto by-law designating the Kensington Market Heritage Conservation District.

The Tribunal granted a request to substitute HSRE-Parallax 1, LP as an appellant in place of BRL Realty Limited due to a transfer of land ownership.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled for June 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed a City of Toronto by-law designating the Cabbagetown Southwest Heritage Conservation District.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties advised they had reached a settlement to change the appellant's property from 'contributing' to 'non-contributing' status.

A local property owner requested Party status to oppose the settlement, but the Tribunal denied the request, granting him Participant status instead.

A written settlement hearing was scheduled.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss the Claimant's claim for injurious affection under the Expropriations Act without a hearing.

The City argued the Claimant failed to identify actionable conduct by the City or a basis for nuisance, as the City merely issued permits for construction by others.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the pleadings sufficiently set out the elements of an injurious affection claim and that there were genuine issues of fact and law in dispute that required a full hearing.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's by-law designating the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District and adopting its associated Plan.

Based on the uncontested expert evidence of a heritage planner and a land use planner, the Tribunal found that the modified Plan satisfies the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act and the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the designation of the HCD and the modified Plan, allowing the appeals in part to implement the settlement.

This decision arises from a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's adoption of a by-law designating the King-Spadina Heritage Conservation District.

On consent, the Tribunal approved updates to the procedural order, recognized additional appellants for transition purposes, and extended the due date for the delivery of proposed modifications to the Heritage Conservation District Plan.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity under the Expropriations Act regarding the City of Toronto's proposed expropriation of their property.

The City sought to expropriate the property to secure it for long-term transitional and affordable housing, having previously leased it for a shelter.

The Ontario Land Tribunal found that the proposed taking was fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives, and delivered its report to the expropriating authority.

The City of Toronto proposed to expropriate a property to secure its long-term use for transitional and affordable housing.

The property owners requested a Hearing of Necessity.

The Tribunal found that the City's evidence regarding the pressing municipal purpose for the housing program was unchallenged.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed taking is fair, sound, and reasonably necessary to achieve the City's objectives.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and site plan application to permit a 20-storey building that retains a heritage church building.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party and participant status to several local residents and corporations.

Due to an outstanding heritage matter and ongoing discussions, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference for December 15, 2023.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's By-law No. 1218-2022, which designates the Parkdale Main Street Heritage Conservation District.

The parties consented to a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a nine-day video hearing to commence in September 2024 and approved the final Procedural Order to guide the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by The Canada Life Assurance Company and GWL Realty Advisors Inc. against the City of Toronto for failing to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval for a mixed-use development at 200 University Avenue.

The Tribunal granted party status to St. Michael's Hospital to address concerns regarding emergency air ambulance helicopter operations.

A ten-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on July 8, 2024, and a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List was approved to guide the proceedings.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a zoning by-law amendment and site plan approval to permit a 7-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the zoning by-law amendment was approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use development incorporating heritage facades.

The City opposed the development, arguing it represented overdevelopment and failed to fit the planned context of a 6-storey maximum height.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding the proposal's design, setbacks, and stepbacks appropriate for the deep corner lot.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, approving the amendments in principle subject to final conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an 11-storey mixed-use development incorporating heritage facades.

The City opposed the development, arguing it represented overdevelopment and failed to fit the planned context of a 6-storey maximum height.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's expert evidence, finding the proposal's design, setbacks, and stepbacks appropriate for the deep corner lot.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle subject to the satisfaction of pre-requisite conditions.

The Appellants appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval to permit a mixed-use building at 200 University Avenue.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring resident and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for August 2, 2023, to finalize the procedural order and issues list, and to address a pending heritage designation.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding a 2006 claim for compensation under the Expropriations Act arising from a 1997 expropriation.

Noting the significant delay, the Tribunal declined to accept the parties' proposed timeline that would delay setting a hearing date for another year.

Instead, the Tribunal exercised its case management powers to schedule a three-week merits hearing for September 2024 and issued a revised Procedural Order to govern the remaining pre-hearing steps.