Ontario Land Tribunal

The City of Mississauga appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances to permit a self-storage facility on a property with an existing automotive use.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that included additional conditions requiring a minimum of 20% of the gross floor area to be used for office space and adherence to specific design plans.

The Ontario Land Tribunal accepted uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the revised proposal meets the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act and represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to authorize the variances subject to the agreed-upon conditions.

The parties requested on consent to amend a procedural timeline in the Tribunal's December 13, 2024 Procedural Order.

The Tribunal granted the request, extending the deadline for the parties to exchange witness lists from April 14, 2025, to May 1, 2025.

In all other respects, the Procedural Order remains unchanged.

The City of Toronto brought a motion requesting that the South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association (SJTG) be ordered to pay $500 in attendance money for four City staff members summoned by the SJTG to testify at a hearing.

The SJTG argued the Tribunal was functus officio and that City employees were not entitled to witness fees.

The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction as only an interim order had been issued, and held that the SJTG was responsible for paying the mandatory witness fees under the Rules.

The motion was allowed in part, and the SJTG was ordered to pay the $500.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use development with two 40-storey residential buildings.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached and requested additional time to finalize the materials.

The Tribunal scheduled a third Case Management Conference and established procedural dates for the exchange of revised application materials and settlement documents.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 33-storey residential redevelopment.

At the first Case Management Conference, no new parties or participants sought status.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by K2 GP Inc. against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for a 12-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a 10-day video hearing to commence on November 3, 2025.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application for a property in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted participant status to five individuals and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the City sufficient time to review the appellant's revised application.

The applicant appealed conditions 4 and 5 of a provisional consent for a boundary adjustment, which required the removal of an existing driveway access to Highway 3.

The Tribunal found that the driveway had existed since the 1930s and was legally grandfathered under the Ministry of Transportation's Highway Corridor Management Manual.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, amending condition 4 and deleting condition 5, confirming the existing driveway may continue as a legal entrance.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Signature Hill Corporation for the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 40-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to two requestors.

A request for party status by a neighbouring property owner was deferred, with the Tribunal directing the requestor to bring a formal motion to clarify the specific reasons for seeking party status.

A motion hearing was scheduled, which may be converted to a second CMC if the issues are resolved.

The appellants appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a consolidated tall building development near Yonge and Eglinton.

The parties reached a settlement that included adding adjacent lands for an on-site parkland dedication.

The Tribunal granted a motion to amend the applications to include the additional lands, finding it did not change the essential nature of the applications.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal approved the settlement in principle, finding it represented good planning, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The parties submitted a consent request to amend a previously issued procedural order in an expropriation compensation claim.

The Ontario Land Tribunal rescinded the December 6, 2024 procedural order and issued a revised procedural order establishing the timetable for pre-hearing steps, mediation, and a 25-day hearing scheduled to commence in March 2026.

The parties submitted a consent request to amend the procedural order governing the arbitration for determination of compensation under the Expropriations Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal granted the request, rescinded the previous procedural order, and issued an amended procedural order with a revised timetable leading up to a 15-day video hearing scheduled to commence on October 15, 2025.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion regarding jurisdictional issues under subsection 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act.

At the commencement of the motion hearing, GCTC Holdings Inc. brought a motion to adjourn, arguing that the City had changed its legal position and introduced new evidence in its reply materials.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to GCTC in proceeding without adequate time to respond outweighed the prejudice to the City in delaying the hearing.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment to facilitate a mixed-use community.

Following a case management conference, the Tribunal issued a procedural order.

The Tribunal subsequently received a request on consent of the parties to amend the procedural order.

The Tribunal ordered the procedural order amended to add 1816986 Ontario Inc. as a party and updated the order of evidence accordingly.

The applicant appealed the municipality's refusal of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment intended to facilitate the development of 45 stacked row dwelling condominiums.

The parties reached a settlement and presented uncontested expert planning evidence supporting the revised applications.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding the proposal represents good land use planning, constitutes appropriate residential intensification, and is consistent with provincial and local planning policies.

The City of Ottawa brought a Request for Review of an Ontario Land Tribunal decision determining compensation for an expropriated property.

The City alleged the Tribunal made material errors in calculating market value by conflating Gross Building Area (GBA) with Gross Floor Area (GFA).

The Tribunal found that the requested changes were substantive and could not be corrected as minor errors under Rule 24.4.

However, applying Rule 25.7(c), the Tribunal concluded that the conflation of GBA and GFA, misstatements of evidence, and resulting confusion constituted a convincing and compelling case that an error was made such that a different decision would likely have been reached.

The Tribunal ordered a partial rehearing limited to the issue of market value, treating the original findings on highest and best use and environmental remediation costs as agreed.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the Township of King's Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2024-028.

The parties reached partial settlements, scoping the appeals to specific lands and two policies.

The Tribunal used its powers under s. 34(23.1) of the Planning Act to approve the non-appealed portions of the by-law, bringing them into full force and effect.

The remaining appeals were deferred pending the outcome of a related review application, and a fourth Case Management Conference was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding three appeals filed against the County of Brant's Development Charges By-law No. 109-24.

The parties agreed to a procedural timeline for exchanging issues lists and interrogatories.

The Tribunal ordered the submission of a draft Procedural Order and scheduled a second Case Management Conference for June 25, 2025.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality's failure to make decisions on zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision applications within the statutory timeframe.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner on consent.

The Tribunal directed the applicant to provide a revised draft plan excluding city-owned lands, set deadlines for the procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a seven-day video hearing for October 2025.

The applicants appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a proposed 12-storey residential building.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal amended the Procedural Order to delay the hearing start date, adjust the deadline for exchanging witness statements, and change a ratepayers association's status from party to participant.