Paul M. DeMelo

This was a first Case Management Conference concerning appeals by the applicant against the City of Vaughan for failing to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-law Amendment.

The proposed development consists of five high-rise residential towers, a mid-rise office building, a public park, and privately-owned publicly accessible spaces.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to two other entities.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled to commence in May 2027, and directions were given for the submission of a Procedural Order and Issues List.

The appellant, a chemical manufacturer, sought to appeal a zoning by-law and official plan amendment that permitted a residential subdivision near its property.

Under the amended Planning Act, only a 'specified person' can appeal such decisions.

The appellant argued it qualified as a specified person because it held an environmental compliance approval and owned vacant land within 300 metres of the proposed development.

The Divisional Court upheld the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision that the appellant was not a specified person, finding that the statutory definition requires the actual discharge of contaminants—not just the ownership of land—to occur within 300 metres of the development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Walker Aggregates Inc. against the Region of Niagara and the City of Niagara Falls for failing to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit a mineral aggregate extraction operation.

The parties advised that a settlement in principle had been reached, significantly narrowing the issues.

The Tribunal granted requests to reschedule the hearing to a shorter 7-day duration in November 2026 and scheduled a fourth CMC for June 2026 to allow for finalization of settlement agreements and further discussions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality for failing to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications.

The applicant proposes a development consisting of three mixed-use towers.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal scheduled a 9-day merit hearing to commence on February 16, 2027, and directed the submission of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion for directions seeking to adjourn the scheduled merit hearing for the PEM appeals and to schedule a consolidated Phase 1 Transportation Hearing to hear common transportation issues across multiple appeals (PEM, SKY, and Kingsmoor) within the Weston and Highway 7 Secondary Plan area.

The responding parties opposed the motion, arguing it would cause prejudice and delay, and that the City's Transportation Master Plan should not dictate site-specific densities.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ordering that the PEM, SKY, and Kingsmoor appeals be heard together for a Phase 1 Transportation Hearing to test the scope and applicability of the City's Transportation Master Plan.

The PEM merit hearing was adjourned and rescheduled.

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

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to two others.

The Tribunal ordered that the scheduling of a merits hearing be held in abeyance pending the outcome of a related motion for direction regarding a potential consolidated transportation hearing.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither responding party filed a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals regarding consent and minor variance applications to sever a property into three lots, the Tribunal considered requests for party and participant status.

The Town of Fort Erie indicated it would not oppose the applications provided its conditions were met.

An adjacent landowner, 4407 Erie Road Holding LLC, requested party status to raise planning, drainage, and environmental concerns.

The Tribunal granted party status to the adjacent landowner, finding its participation necessary to effectively adjudicate the issues, especially given the Town's position.

Participant status was also granted to several individuals, and a four-day merit hearing was scheduled.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Cambridge's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to make a decision on a draft plan of subdivision.

The Tribunal consolidated the two appeals, granted participant status to two entities, and scheduled a 15-day hearing for November 2026.

The appellant home builders' association appealed the respondent municipality's development charge by-laws.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the by-laws, including shifting certain Parks & Recreation project costs to a post-period benefit, removing a library project from the eligible costs, and deferring residential development charge payments to the occupancy permit stage.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified by-laws complied with the Development Charges Act and approved the settlement.

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed high-density mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to one individual and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List.

A 14-day merit hearing was also scheduled for October 2026.

The appellant filed a site plan approval application and subsequently appealed the City's failure to make a decision within the statutory timeframe.

The respondent, who owned the subject lands, sought to hold the appeal in abeyance pending the outcome of parallel civil litigation regarding a purchase agreement for the lands.

The appellant brought a motion for directions seeking declarations that it was the owner of the site plan application, that the appeal was valid, and that the matter should not be held in abeyance.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had been acting as an agent for the respondent and that this agency had been revoked.

Applying a strict interpretation of 'owner' under s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, the Tribunal concluded that proceeding with the appeal while ownership was being litigated could lead to absurd results.

The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's motion and adjourned the appeal sine die pending the outcome of the civil litigation.

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

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs in the amount of $5,000, with entitlement to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City's refusal of an application to convert 60 existing rental townhouses to condominium tenure.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved all issues and agreed on conditions of approval.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the conversion consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan, noting it would provide affordable ownership while protecting existing tenants.

The appeal was allowed and the draft plan of condominium was approved subject to conditions.

The applicant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications for a high-rise mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement in principle, revising the tower heights to 50 and 47 storeys and adding a holding provision for a wind study to address an adjacent property owner's concerns.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised applications consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning, allowing the appeals in part on an interim basis pending finalization of the instruments.

The appellant appealed the Region's decision to impose a commercial development charge for a property to be leased to Goodwill Industries.

The appellant argued that Goodwill's operations, which include processing and recycling textiles, should be classified as an 'Industrial Use' under the Development Charge By-law.

The Tribunal found that the by-law's definition of 'Industrial Use' clearly requires the use to be connected with manufacturing.

Since no manufacturing was occurring on the property, the Tribunal concluded that the commercial rate was correctly applied and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a 580-unit residential development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the registered owner of the subject property requested party status, noting ongoing civil litigation with the appellant regarding the purchase agreement and questioning the appellant's authority to appeal.

The Tribunal granted party status to the registered owner and scheduled a motion hearing to determine jurisdictional issues, including whether the appellant is an authorized agent and whether the appeal should be held in abeyance pending the civil litigation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the proceedings for an upcoming hearing.

The underlying appeal concerns the refusal of a proposed plan of subdivision that would permit the conversion of 60 existing townhouses to condominium tenure in the City of North Bay.

The hearing is scheduled for three days commencing September 2, 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a proposed residential development.

The parties reached a settlement to permit a revised development of 104 stacked back-to-back townhouses, reduced from the originally proposed 15-storey building.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the settlement.