Patrick John Harrington

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 59-unit townhouse development.

At a case management conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement-in-principle.

The Tribunal ordered that the hearing to consider the proposed settlement be conducted in writing and adjourned the matter sine die, with a status update required if materials were not filed by June 30, 2026.

The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 409 and Zoning By-law 702-2024, which regulate development on Ookwemin Minising (formerly Villiers Island) in Toronto's Port Lands.

The modifications address building heights, density, land uses, and meanwhile uses.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement represents good planning, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms with the applicable Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions and orders of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000, to be awarded at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision application and the Hamilton Conservation Authority's refusal to grant a permit for wetland relocation.

The parties reached a settlement proposing a revised draft plan for an industrial business park that protects and enhances natural heritage features, including expanding and partially relocating an existing wetland.

Based on uncontested expert planning and ecological evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial and municipal policies, addressed participant concerns, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part and the draft plan was approved subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 21-storey residential building.

The City and TRCA brought a joint motion to strike certain witness statement evidence, which was granted in part.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and conformed to the applicable York Region Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft OPA and ZBA in principle, subject to a holding provision requiring a finalized Tree Removal, Compensation and Restoration Mitigation Plan.

The appellants appealed the Town of Oakville's Neyagawa Urban Core Official Plan Amendment (NUC OPA) and site-specific zoning and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal adjudicated contested policies regarding food store requirements, public realm delivery, building heights, and minimum density targets.

The Tribunal also considered the site-specific appeal by Argo Neyagawa Corporation, determining that the developer was not required to provide a Village Square under the Master Parkland Agreement, but must accommodate a trail network.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the Tribunal approving the planning instruments in principle subject to modifications and finalization.

The City of Burlington requested a review of a Tribunal decision that refused to dismiss an appeal of the new City Official Plan.

The original decision held that the appeal survived the sale of the subject property because it was 'tied to the land', and directed the City to contact the new owner.

The Tribunal Chair granted the request for review, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Chair held that while Tribunal decisions regarding permitted land uses run with the land (in rem), the right to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal is a personal right (in personam).

The original decision was varied to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The Township sought an adjournment of a scheduled merit hearing on the basis that it intended to voluntarily rescind the impugned amending development charges by-law, rendering the appeal moot.

The Appellant opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice regarding wasted legal costs and the potential loss of statutory refunds for its members under s. 18 of the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that a voluntary repeal would render the requested remedy moot regardless of the adjournment, and that costs could be addressed through a subsequent motion.

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment's decision to deny consent and a minor variance for a property at 40 Church Street.

The proposal sought to sever the lot into six residential lots for townhouse dwellings, requiring a minor variance for reduced minimum lot area on one lot.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed development conforms with the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, represents gentle intensification, and satisfies the criteria under the Planning Act.

Provisional consent was granted subject to conditions.

The appellant appealed the refusal of a minor variance application to permit a townhouse development.

At the Case Management Conference, the City raised preliminary threshold issues regarding the proper characterization of the development under the zoning by-law.

The Tribunal scheduled a motion in writing to determine the preliminary issues prior to the three-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the hearing of site-specific Appeal 247 concerning By-law No. 569-2013 in the City of Toronto.

The order establishes the procedural dates, issues list, and order of evidence for a seven-day hearing scheduled to commence on June 16, 2026.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to facilitate a high-rise mixed-use development with 2,009 units.

The central issues were whether the property's location within a Future Major Transit Station Area conferred development rights, the appropriateness of the proposed height and density, and transportation impacts.

The Tribunal found that the Provincial Planning Statement does not distinguish between planned and future MTSAs, thereby supporting the proposed intensification.

The Tribunal preferred the appellant's expert evidence, concluding the proposal represents good land use planning, provides appropriate transition, and that transportation impacts are acceptable subject to holding provisions.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis.

The applicant appealed the Town of Innisfil's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate a townhouse development.

Following a Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised proposal including 16 semi-detached units and 60 townhouse units.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policies and local official plans.

The appeal was allowed and the planning instruments were approved.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to obtain status updates on the remaining appeals of the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on various issue-specific and site-specific appeals, noting ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal directed all appellants to provide written updates to the City regarding their intentions to continue settlement discussions or provide an issues list, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 2026.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to have five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals (Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc., Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc., and Whitechurch Landowners Group Inc.) heard together.

The parties consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard at the commencement of the previously scheduled Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the identical issues together would result in consistent adjudication and reduce overall hearing time without prejudicing the independent consideration of site-specific issues.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the first scheduled merit hearing.

The City of Hamilton brought a motion to consolidate the hearing of five common Residential Land Need Issues across three separate appeals regarding urban boundary expansions.

The appellants consented to the motion.

The Tribunal found that hearing the common issues together was appropriate to ensure consistent adjudication and efficiency without prejudicing the individual site-specific hearings.

The motion was granted, and the common issues were ordered to be heard together at the commencement of the Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing regarding the Township of Selwyn's development charges by-laws.

The underlying appeal by Camping in Ontario challenges whether the installation of Park Model Trailers constitutes 'development' under the Development Charges Act and whether the by-laws properly define and assess charges for such trailers.

The hearing is scheduled for four days commencing March 3, 2026.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to adjourn the Phase 2B Hearing regarding appeals by the appellant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The City argued that there was insufficient time to prepare for the scheduled January 2026 dates due to the complexity of the issues and the need for expert coordination.

The appellant consented to a short adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing to commence in February 2026.

The Applicants and the Town of Caledon brought a motion for approval of a settlement concerning an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment to permit a 4-storey residential condominium.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) opposed the settlement, arguing that the Tribunal's previous 2022 decision failed to make determinations on natural hazard and negative impact issues.

The Tribunal declined to conduct a review or reconsideration of its 2022 decision, finding no statutory basis to do so.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Town's Official Plan, and approved the settlement.