Nicholas Macos

The appellants appealed the Town of Fort Erie's adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit a four-storey apartment building with ground-floor commercial units.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the applicable Official Plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part to implement the revised amendments.

The appellant appealed two orders finding a joint venture agreement for a convenience store on First Nation land enforceable and granting the respondent permanent possession of the business.

The appellant argued the agreement was void under s. 28 of the Indian Act, violated the First Nation's Land Code, and contained a forged redaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement did not directly grant land possession, the possession order was subject to First Nation approval, and the application judge reasonably relied on expert handwriting evidence to find the document authentic.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021.

The parties requested an adjournment to finalize settlements, but the Tribunal refused, noting the appeals had languished for nearly three years.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day Merit Hearing for June 2025, allowing the parties time to settle beforehand if possible, and approved a revised Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 144-2021.

One appellant withdrew their appeal, and another reached a settlement with the Town.

The Tribunal scheduled a written settlement hearing for the resolved appeal and a further Case Management Conference for the remaining appellants, who are seeking to amend their development applications.

At a Case Management Conference concerning appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-Law Amendment No. 144-2021, the appellants requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates to facilitate ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, vacating the August 2024 hearing dates and scheduling a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a case management conference to address multiple appeals of the City of Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Transitional By-law 039-2022.

The Tribunal heard and approved several settlement motions on consent, which corrected mapping errors and recognized site-specific exceptions for various properties.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the amendments consistent with provincial policies and good planning.

The Tribunal also issued an order under section 34(31) of the Planning Act deeming the un-appealed portions of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law to be in force.

The Town of Fort Erie brought a motion seeking partial approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 56 (the Crystal Beach Secondary Plan) and Zoning By-law No. 144-2021, bringing them into force except for the specific properties under appeal.

The Tribunal applied the four-part test from Casertano and found that the planning evidence supported the secondary plan, the remaining appeals were scoped to site-specific properties, the draft order protected the remaining appeals, and partial approval was in the public interest to allow other development applications to proceed.

The motion was granted.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Fort Erie's Official Plan Amendment No. 56 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 144-2021, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner, finding reasonable grounds under s. 17(44.2.2) of the Planning Act.

Participant status was also granted to a former resident.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to hear the Town's motion to bring the unappealed portions of the amendments into force.

The applicant appealed the Township of King's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 28-unit single detached residential development.

Prior to the merit hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with applicable provincial and municipal plans, and representative of good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis, approving the draft plan and zoning by-law amendments in principle, with the final order withheld pending satisfaction of specified conditions.

The applicant, 2089322 Ontario Corporation, sought a determination of its rights under a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Luc DesRoches and Rezmart Gas and Tobacco.

The primary issues were the authenticity of a redacted version of the JVA (JVA2), which the respondent alleged was forged, and the enforceability of the JVA in light of section 28 of the Indian Act.

The court found JVA2 to be the authentic agreement, accepting the applicant's expert handwriting analysis and rejecting the respondent's forgery allegations.

Furthermore, the court declared that the JVA was not voided by section 28 of the Indian Act, as it merely contemplated a lease of reserve land rather than explicitly conferring a possessory interest to a non-band member.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in a previous decision regarding a Case Management Conference.

The amendment corrected a statutory reference from subsection 17(36) to subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and issued a procedural order regarding multiple appeals related to the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, the 2010 Vaughan Official Plan, and various site-specific development applications.

The Tribunal granted an adjournment of the Phase 3 hearing on consent to allow parties to finalize settlements, scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the remaining Official Plan appeals, and approved an altered hearing plan for the Solmar Inc. and Eastwood Holdings Corp. appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals related to the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, the 2010 Vaughan Official Plan, and various site-specific development applications.

The Tribunal granted an adjournment of the Phase 3 hearing on consent to allow parties to finalize settlements and refine remaining issues.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the remaining Vaughan Official Plan appeals and approved an altered hearing plan for the Solmar Inc. and Eastwood Holdings Corp. appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and hearing regarding multiple appeals of the City of Vaughan's Official Plan, Zoning By-law Amendments, and Plans of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted an adjournment of the Phase 3 hearing for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan appeals to allow parties to finalize settlements.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for the remaining 2010 Vaughan Official Plan appeals.

The Tribunal also approved an altered hearing plan for the Solmar Inc. and Eastwood Holdings Corp. appeals, scheduling a potential Phase 2 hearing depending on the outcome of Phase 1.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals related to the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, the Vaughan Official Plan, and various site-specific development applications.

The Tribunal scheduled further hearing dates, established procedural directions for the exchange of materials, and set out an altered hearing plan for specific appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding multiple appeals related to the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, the Vaughan Official Plan, and various site-specific zoning and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal adjourned the Phase 3 hearing on consent to allow parties to finalize settlements and scheduled a further hearing for March 2023.

Additional dates were set for the remaining Vaughan Official Plan appeals and the Solmar Inc./Eastwood Holdings Corp. appeals, with directions provided for video hearing participation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference and hearing regarding multiple appeals related to the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan, the 2010 Vaughan Official Plan, and various site-specific development applications.

The Tribunal granted an adjournment of the Phase 3 hearing for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan appeals to allow parties to finalize settlements.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference for the remaining Vaughan Official Plan appeals and agreed to an altered hearing plan for the Solmar Inc. and Eastwood Holdings Corp. appeals.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a site plan application to permit the redevelopment of four 3-storey townhouse units.

Following a settlement hearing where the Tribunal previously allowed the zoning by-law amendment appeals in principle, the Tribunal heard uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the site plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the site plan application in principle, subject to pre-approval and post-approval conditions.

At a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Township's failure to make decisions on zoning and subdivision applications, the Tribunal was advised that a settlement in principle had been reached between the statutory parties.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC, with directions that it be converted to a written hearing if a full settlement is finalized with the remaining parties.

The applicant and respondents were involved in a long-standing dispute over a Joint Venture Agreement for a gas bar on a First Nation.

The respondents brought pre-hearing motions to bifurcate the hearing to address the Indian Act issue first, for interim possession of the business, and for the return of $15,000 paid into court as security for costs.

The applicant brought a motion to call oral evidence at the hearing.

The court denied the bifurcation and interim possession motions, granted the motion to call oral evidence, and ordered the return of the $15,000 to the respondent.