P. Duffy

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's Official Plan Amendment 2, the Tribunal granted party status to Aliena Land Corporation et al. and Sofina Foods Inc. The Tribunal also issued a supplementary order on consent, scoping the appeals of Canadian National Railway Company, Bull Moose Tube Limited, and Manor Care, and adjourning the Manor Care appeals pending the processing of a site-specific development application.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to permit a 22-storey mixed-use building with 320 residential units.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the City's Official Plan, noting it provides residential intensification within a Protected Major Transit Station Area.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the fulfillment of conditions including the final form of the zoning by-law amendment.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendments concerning Major Transit Station Areas.

The City requested that potential settlements be addressed via written hearings once council instructions are received, and that a party status request by Brampton Plan be deferred.

The Tribunal agreed, deferring the party status request and scheduling a further Case Management Conference for October 2025.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding four remaining site-specific appeals to the City of London's 2016 Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the parties' request to further adjourn the appeals to allow for ongoing discussions and the processing of related site-specific applications.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2025.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding five remaining site-specific appeals to the City of London's 2016 Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the parties' requests to adjourn four appeals to the next CMC to allow for further discussions on site-specific applications.

The Tribunal also adjourned one appeal sine die to enable potential consolidation with recently filed Official Plan and Zoning By-law appeals for the subject site.

A further CMC was scheduled for August 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision pursuant to Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to correct a technical error in a previous decision issued on June 22, 2023.

The amendment updated paragraph 14 to include the specific audio-only telephone line numbers and access code for persons wishing to connect to the event.

In all other respects, the original decision remained unchanged.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding the remaining appeals to the City of London's 2016 Official Plan.

Appeal 29 was withdrawn prior to the hearing.

Appeal 20 was dismissed as the current owner failed to respond to a previous Tribunal Order and did not attend.

The Tribunal granted the parties additional time to continue resolution discussions for the remaining site-specific appeals and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for February 2024.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals to three Development Charges By-laws passed by the City of Vaughan.

The parties advised that they are pursuing mediation for one by-law, requesting an adjournment sine die for another, and withdrawing appeals for the third.

The Tribunal confirmed the withdrawal of appeals for By-law 120-2022 and directed that subsequent proceedings for the remaining by-laws be held separately.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference to obtain status updates and set hearing dates for the remaining appeals (Phases 6C, 6D, 6E, 6F, and 6G) of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 231.

The Tribunal approved procedural orders for Phases 6D and 6E, scheduled a settlement hearing for Phase 6C, set 10-day merit hearings for Phases 6D and 6E, and scheduled a further case management conference for Phase 6G.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding remaining appeals to the City of London's 2016 Official Plan.

The Tribunal noted scheduled hearing dates for two appeals, set a timeline for a written motion for party status regarding another appeal, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference to address updates and potential settlements for the remaining appeals.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding various remaining appeals to the City of London's new Official Plan, known as the 'London Plan'.

The Tribunal scheduled hearing dates for the remaining city-wide appeals and site-specific appeals, approved a Procedural Order, and provided directions for future case management conferences.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt a requested official plan amendment to permit the modernization of an existing industrial operation and add residential and retail uses.

At a case management conference, two adjoining landowners and the school board requested party status, citing common issues related to a proposed road and the Golden Mile Secondary Plan.

As there was no opposition, the Tribunal granted party status to all three requesters and directed the parties to produce an issues list.

The applicant, Bovaird, purchased land from the respondent, Mattamy, with the intention of developing it for district retail use.

Mattamy agreed to indemnify Bovaird for all future obligations under a cost-sharing agreement.

Bovaird later changed its plans and developed the land for residential use, triggering an additional $2.8 million contribution under the cost-sharing agreement.

Bovaird sought indemnification from Mattamy.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the broad indemnity must be read in the context of the parties' agreement as a whole, which included a specific contractual commitment by Bovaird to develop the land for district retail use.

The court held that Bovaird could not rely on the indemnity to profit from its own breach of that commitment.