OLT 2023

At a Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation for an expropriation by the Regional Municipality of York, the parties advised the Tribunal that they were engaged in settlement discussions.

The Tribunal directed the parties to honour their undertakings to exchange and respond to settlement offers within 90 days, and to contact the Case Co-ordinator thereafter to advise if the matter would proceed to arbitration.

Following an interim decision allowing the appeals, the Tribunal received the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment and a request on consent for minor revisions to the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions.

The Tribunal approved the final instruments and ordered the amendment of the zoning by-law and approval of the draft plan of subdivision, with final approval delegated to the City of Oshawa.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement for a 12 and 14 storey residential building connected by a seven-storey central element.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft planning instruments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several prerequisite conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Barrie's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit an 8-storey mixed-use condominium development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal, which reduced the building height and addressed access concerns, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conformed to the Growth Plan and the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on an interim basis, withholding its final order pending the submission of the final zoning by-law amendment and confirmation of the settlement conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3000-unit mixed-use community redevelopment.

The parties reached a full settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended planning instruments.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of an Official Plan Amendment to permit a quarry.

The parties advised they intend to call expert witnesses and are completing studies.

The Tribunal determined a full Procedural Order was not required but directed the parties to confer on document exchange and hearing length.

A second CMC was scheduled.

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

The parties reached a settlement for a 51-storey tower on a four-storey podium.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the fulfillment of conditions.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 24-storey residential building.

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

Based on the uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Growth Plan and City Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the draft instruments and the provision of functional servicing reports.

The applicant appealed the failure of the Township of King to make decisions on official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and site plan applications for a mid-rise residential and commercial development.

Following a prior decision endorsing a settlement, the Tribunal held a written hearing to consider the finalized site plan and conditions.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the site plan application consistent with provincial policies and local plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and granted interim approval of the site plan, withholding the final order until the site plan agreement is executed.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on zoning and site plan applications, as well as the passage of heritage designation by-laws and refusal of demolition permits for properties on Yonge Street.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to schedule hearing dates and address status requests.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner and participant status to a local resident, and scheduled a three-day hearing for the heritage designation appeals followed by a 14-day hearing for the remaining appeals.

The Tribunal held a case management conference and settlement hearing regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231 (OPA 231).

The Tribunal scheduled future hearing dates and deadlines for various site-specific appeals.

Additionally, the Tribunal heard and approved a settlement motion regarding the appeals by Amexon Realty Inc. for lands at 701-703 Evans Avenue.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal approved modifications to OPA 231 and OPA 469 to redesignate the lands from Core Employment Areas to Mixed Use Areas, permitting residential uses on a portion of the site while prioritizing office commercial uses.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order following Case Management Conferences held on February 21 and April 5, 2023.

The order establishes the procedural rules, issues list, and order of evidence for the upcoming hearing regarding appeals by 2606609 Ontario Inc. against the City of Kingston's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for the properties at 2 River Street and 50 Orchard Street.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passing of a zoning by-law amendment that rezoned a portion of the subject property from Rural Residential to Rural to facilitate the construction of a livestock facility.

The appellant raised concerns regarding odour and potential well water contamination.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the County Official Plan, and restores the intended zoning of the property.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with four residential towers and a hotel.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced tower floor plates and overall gross floor area.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final by-law drafts and confirmation of infrastructure capacity.

The Tribunal previously ordered that the appeal by 1709492 Ontario Limited regarding Official Plan Amendment No. 379 would be dismissed if a site-specific application was not submitted to the City of Toronto by May 31, 2023.

The City notified the Tribunal that no application was filed.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered the appeal dismissed without costs.

The applicant appealed the City of Ottawa's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of two four-storey apartment buildings.

Prior to the hearing, the City resolved not to oppose the application.

Based on uncontested expert evidence in land use planning, transportation, and environmental noise, the Tribunal found that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed and the Zoning By-law was amended accordingly.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed mixed-use development.

At a Case Management Conference, a neighbourhood association requested an adjournment, arguing they were unprepared because the municipality and the applicant had recently reached a settlement.

The Tribunal denied the adjournment request, finding it procedurally improper as it lacked the consent of all parties and no formal motion was brought.

The Tribunal also ordered the association to provide its lay witness statements by a specified deadline, permitting four named individuals to testify as lay witnesses provided the statements were submitted.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit 48-storey and 59-storey mixed-use buildings.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and Issues List on consent, scheduling a 10-day video hearing to commence on February 6, 2024.

The Town and an intervenor association brought motions for costs against the owners after the owners withdrew their objections to notices of intention to designate heritage attributes under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The withdrawal occurred five weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal first determined it had jurisdiction to award costs in a proceeding even if the matter was withdrawn before a hearing on the merits.

However, applying the high threshold for costs under Rule 23.9, the Tribunal found that the owners' conduct in withdrawing the objections and their stated reasons for doing so were not clearly unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The motions for costs were dismissed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant from the municipality's failure to make a decision on an Official Plan Amendment to permit a gravel pit.

The Tribunal granted party status to the regional municipality, the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and an adjacent property owner.

Participant status was granted to two individuals.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 2023 to allow time for related applications to be filed.