OLT 2023

The applicant appealed the City of Burlington's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The City argued for a maximum height of 17 storeys and a larger tower setback based on its unapproved 2020 Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the 26-storey development.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan, noting it optimizes land use in an Urban Growth Centre, provides needed housing, and is compatible with the surrounding area without causing adverse impacts.

The appellants appealed the Township's refusal of a development permit application to permit legal non-conforming dwellings and increase shoreline activity area frontage.

At the first Case Management Conference, the appellants were absent due to a medical issue but their planner attended.

The Township confirmed it would not participate in the appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the hearing to proceed in writing.

At a Case Management Conference for an expropriation claim, the respondent Metrolinx sought a motion to compel the claimant to provide a further Supplementary Affidavit of Documents, arguing the current disclosure was inadequate to prepare for discoveries.

The Tribunal found the request premature, directing that the sufficiency of the evidence should be tested through the examination for discovery process and undertakings.

The Tribunal scheduled a four-day merit hearing and deferred any award of costs to the panel hearing the merits.

The appellant appealed the approval of a Development Permit Application to the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Following a public hearing and the issuance of a decision with an attached Procedural Order, the parties requested an amendment to the order on consent.

The Tribunal granted the request and amended the dates for exchanging witness statements and reply witness statements.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nelson Aggregate Co. for official plan amendments and an Aggregate Resources Act license to permit a quarry expansion.

The Tribunal granted party status to six entities, including the City of Burlington and the Regional Municipality of Halton, and participant status to 66 individuals.

The Tribunal directed the parties to collaborate on a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address a forthcoming motion for consolidation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicants from the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment application for the Centrepoint Mall property.

The Tribunal granted party status to several neighbouring landowners and the Toronto Catholic District School Board, and participant status to a local resident.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for January 22, 2024, to address procedural matters and a potential consolidation with a related appeal.

The Appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring it to take actions to address potential contamination at its property, pending an appeal.

The Tribunal found it had the authority to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the historic contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay.

The Appellant failed to establish irreparable harm, as its financial costs were potentially recoverable in ongoing civil litigation and did not outweigh the public interest in identifying and managing the source of trichloroethylene contamination.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use community with five residential and mixed-use buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement in principle.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the revised proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal approved the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions, while adjourning the Plan of Subdivision and fee protest appeals sine die.

The appellant brought a motion to stay a Director's Order requiring environmental investigation and reporting regarding potential trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination at its site, pending an appeal hearing.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to grant a stay under section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act, as the contamination did not pose an immediate danger to health or safety.

However, applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal denied the stay because the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, noting that potential compliance costs could be pursued in ongoing civil litigation.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in identifying the source of the TCE contamination.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control applications for a high-density residential development.

The Tribunal consolidated the appeals, approved a revised Procedural Order, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings leading up to a 9-day video hearing scheduled to commence on February 12, 2024.

The hearing concerns appeals by JM Market Grey Inc. regarding the City of Brantford's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a proposed mixed-use building.

This was the first Case Management Conference for an appeal regarding a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 34-storey mixed-use building at 1840 Bayview Avenue in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted participant status to 19 individuals and associations, and party status to Glaze Dev LP and the Broadway Area Residents Association.

A 10-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on May 27, 2024, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

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's refusal of a minor variance application and the failure to make a decision on site plan and draft plan of subdivision applications for a proposed 53-unit townhouse development.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to four individuals, adjourned the subdivision appeal pending mediation, scheduled a five-day hearing on the merits for the remaining appeals, and approved the procedural order and issues list.

This was the third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 415 Broadview GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The applicant proposes a 10-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties, and scheduled a 10-day video hearing on the merits for June 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order following a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The amendments seek to permit the construction of two 20-storey high-rise residential condominium buildings.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding minor variance and site plan applications to permit a mixed-use development consisting of three residential towers above ground floor commercial uses.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal considered amended variances and a revised site plan agreed to by the parties.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the amended variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and that the site plan represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed, the variances were authorized, and the site plan was approved subject to conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision.

The Tribunal granted party status to Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited, IPEX Inc., and Metro Ontario Real Estate Limited, noting they satisfied the legislative tests and were already parties to related Official Plan and Zoning By-law appeals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 3, 2023.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding the remaining site-specific appeals to the City of Hamilton's Official Plan Amendment No. 69 and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 17-240.

The parties reported positive ongoing discussions to resolve the remaining technical issues, with some appeals potentially being withdrawn.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a status update by November 30, 2023, and to schedule a further hearing by teleconference if necessary.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a mixed-use development with three residential towers.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Tribunal held a settlement hearing.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the Zoning By-law.