Paul M. DeMelo

The applicants brought a motion requesting the Tribunal to issue a final Order enacting zoning amendments for a 49-storey residential development, following a previous decision allowing their appeal.

The City of Toronto opposed, arguing the applicants were seeking to increase the unit count, which amounted to a review beyond the prescribed timeframe.

The Tribunal found that the original approval did not explicitly restrict the number of units and that unit count was not a determinative factor in its findings.

The Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction to issue the final Order approving the zoning by-law amendment without the unit cap.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding 46 appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 536, which relates to development within the area of influence of rail facilities.

The Tribunal granted party status to seven entities, noted the withdrawal of two appeals in favour of party status, and established a procedural timeline for the submission of consolidated and site-specific issues lists.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for December 1, 2022.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals related to the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan.

The parties confirmed that a Phase 3 hearing was no longer necessary and scoped the remaining issues for a Phase 4 hearing.

The Tribunal approved the final Procedural Order and Issues List for the Phase 4 hearing, scheduled a six-week hearing for May 2023, and granted party status to Ibrans Developments Ltd. on consent.

The appellant appealed the Town of Newmarket's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment and referred a site plan application for a proposed 79-unit apartment building.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted unchallenged expert planning evidence that the development represents appropriate intensification, conforms to the applicable official plans and provincial policies, and represents good planning.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the zoning by-law amendment in principle, and withheld its final order pending the finalization of a site plan agreement.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by landowners against the City of Richmond Hill's Development Charge By-laws.

The parties agreed on a draft Procedural Order, an Issues List, and the scheduling of a 13-day merits hearing.

The Tribunal also scheduled a one-day motion hearing to address a jurisdictional issue raised by the City regarding one of the appeals.

The proceedings were consolidated.

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances required to validate an existing detached garage and loggia that were built closer to the lot line than previously approved.

The City took no position on the appeal but requested a condition regarding lot grading and stormwater management.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the variances met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as they maintained the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, were desirable, and were minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed in part and the variances were authorized subject to the City's requested condition.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (OPAs 13-18).

The City brought a motion for partial approval (Draft Order 3) to resolve numerous Phase 2 issues based on an Agreed Statement of Facts by land use planning experts, which the Tribunal approved.

The Tribunal also considered Draft Order 4 to implement Minutes of Settlement regarding settlement boundaries.

Fenelon Trails requested a deferral of the Fenelon Falls urban boundary approval, arguing it would restrict growth.

The Tribunal denied the deferral request, noting Fenelon Trails was a non-appellant party sheltering under another appeal that had settled, and approved Draft Orders 3 and 4 to implement the settlement and boundary adjustments.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal was updated on settlement discussions, a recent Minister's Zoning Order, and the resolution of issues with one of the appellants.

The Tribunal ordered the parties to file a final hearing plan by February 9, 2022, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference and hearing dates.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a 67-unit single-detached residential development on a former golf course.

Following a previous Tribunal decision allowing the appeals, the parties agreed to a revised draft plan that eliminated a cul-de-sac, improved road connectivity, and provided additional parkland.

The Tribunal found the revised plan and zoning by-law amendment conformed to the approved Official Plan Amendment, satisfied the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and represented good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to approve the revised instruments.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and related amendments.

The Tribunal addressed a request for an adjournment based on a pending disposition letter, confirmed there were no concerns with certain lands remaining within the Lindsay urban settlement boundary, extended the deadline for the Agreed Statement of Facts, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for January 2022.

This appeal concerned the procedural fairness requirements when a court, on its own motion, strikes the pleadings of a self-represented Indigenous party for alleged contempt and abuse of process.

The motion judge had found the appellant, an alleged protest leader, in defiance of court orders, struck his pleadings, and granted a permanent injunction with significant costs.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by conflating contempt and abuse of process, failing to provide the appellant with adequate procedural safeguards, and denying him a fair opportunity to be heard, especially given his self-represented and Indigenous status.

The appeal was allowed, the orders striking pleadings and granting the permanent injunction were set aside, and the costs award was also set aside.

At a Case Management Conference for appeals concerning a proposed seven-storey mixed-use building, the Tribunal granted party and participant status to several individuals and a ratepayers' association.

The Tribunal resolved disputes over the Procedural Order, ruling that a minor error in the Notice of CMC did not invalidate it, directing a self-represented party to bring his preliminary motion regarding the scope of expert evidence by a specific date or face a bar on raising the issue, and determining that a party's residential address need not be published in the Procedural Order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan and various Official Plan Amendments.

The Tribunal granted a motion for disclosure, allowing information pertaining to servicing capacity to be entered into evidence at the upcoming hearing.

The Tribunal denied a request by certain appellants to postpone dealing with the Lindsay urban boundary issue, directing that the hearing proceed as originally scheduled.

Finally, the Tribunal approved the modified Official Plan Schedules A-2, A-4, and A-5, and finalized the Procedural Order for the Phase 2 hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 49-storey residential development with retail at-grade on a site containing an existing 30-storey rental apartment building.

The City opposed the development, arguing the height and massing were inappropriate and the unit mix did not meet guidelines.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed infill development promotes efficient use of land, is transit-supportive, accommodates an appropriate mix of uses, and conforms to the Official Plan, Growth Plan, and Provincial Policy Statement.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the height and podium design would not have unacceptable adverse impacts and that the unit mix provided functional family-sized units.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of an appeal by the Niagara Home Builders' Association against the City of Thorold's Development Charges By-law No. 46-2019.

The order sets out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the parties to the hearing, the issues list, the order of evidence, and a summary of filing dates.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard motions for leave to intervene from three public interest organizations (1492 Windsor Law Coalition, Aboriginal Legal Services, and Canadian Civil Liberties Association) in an appeal concerning the striking of an Indigenous appellant's pleadings and a substantial costs award in an injunction proceeding related to a land dispute.

The motions judge had found the appellant in contempt of court.

The Court dismissed all motions for intervention, finding that 1492 WLC and ALS's submissions inappropriately expanded the legal issues on appeal by focusing on injunctions, and CCLA's submissions largely overlapped with the appellant's arguments.

The court concluded that the appellant could adequately address the Indigenous perspective.

No costs were awarded against the proposed interveners.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the municipality's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision.

The parties submitted a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List, which the Tribunal approved.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on March 14, 2022.

The applicant requested to vary a previous Tribunal decision approving a draft Plan of Subdivision, as the City of Brampton decided against allowing two blocks of land to be redeployed for road and servicing extensions.

The Tribunal granted the request under s. 35 of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act and held a Case Management Conference to organize the proceeding.

A three-day hearing was scheduled to consider the revised Plan of Subdivision.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to phase the proceedings, separating a contested woodlot into a future phase.

The Tribunal converted the case management conference into a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, allowed the appeals in part to approve the planning instruments for the first phase of the development.

The appellants built a retaining wall on a neighbour's property without a permit from the Credit Valley Conservation Authority.

The neighbour (Lorne Park Estates Association) pleaded guilty to provincial offences related to the wall.

The appellants sought to intervene in the Association's sentencing to argue against the wall's removal, but their application was dismissed by the justice of the peace.

The Superior Court dismissed their certiorari application to quash this decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in denying intervener status, as intervention in quasi-criminal sentencing is rare and it would be unfair to allow third parties to interpose themselves against a joint submission by the Crown and accused.