Peter Gross

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use redevelopment.

The parties disputed the wording of three issues on the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List concerning noise mitigation and Class 4 designation.

The Tribunal amended one issue to remain within its jurisdictional limits and directed the parties to continue discussions on the remaining two issues.

The Tribunal also approved the final Procedural Order and acknowledged the municipality's retention of outside counsel to ensure the expeditious resolution of the matter.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use redevelopment in the City of Mississauga.

The appeals were brought due to the City's failure to make a decision within the legislated timeframe.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one entity and party status to three entities, including a neighbouring business, a landowners association, and the Region of Peel.

Over the objections of the City and other parties who argued it was premature, the Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a nine-day hearing on the merits to ensure a fair, just, and expeditious resolution.

The appellants appealed the Township's Committee of Adjustment decision denying a minor variance application to permit a dock addition on their waterfront property.

The proposed addition required relief from the zoning by-law for deficient side yard setbacks.

The Tribunal found that the application met the four tests for a minor variance under section 45(1) of the Planning Act, as it maintained the general intent of the Official Plans and Zoning By-law, was desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and was minor in nature.

The appeal was allowed and the variances were authorized.

The appellant appealed the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a warehousing property.

The parties reached a settlement to permit the continuation of warehousing uses with expanded parking, new access points, and enhanced landscaping, including a noise barrier.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed site plan complied with the Planning Act, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Growth Plan and applicable Official Plans.

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

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Transmetro Limited against the Town of Oakville's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a three-storey, 14-unit apartment building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Region of Halton and participant status to several local residents and a residents' association on consent.

A five-day hearing was scheduled and a Procedural Order was approved.

The moving party sought an extension of time to review interlocutory rulings and a costs order made by a judge who had previously denied their motion for leave to appeal a Land Planning Appeal Tribunal decision regarding a new hospital site.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the interlocutory rulings merged with the final decision denying leave, rendering them moot.

The court held that the proposed review was an abuse of process attempting to collaterally attack a final decision, and that the costs order was well within the motions judge's discretion.

The applicants, owners of cottage properties in Tiny Township, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent municipality from interfering with their use of a grassy area between their properties and the beach.

The applicants claimed exclusive possession of the grassy area for decades, while the municipality claimed ownership based on a 1931 dedication.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found a serious issue to be tried regarding ownership, that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm through loss of enjoyment and potential environmental impact, and that the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo.

The motion for an interlocutory injunction was granted.

The moving party, a residents association, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) that dismissed its appeals against the City of Windsor's approval of an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

The amendments facilitated the location of a new regional acute care hospital.

The moving party argued the LPAT erred in law regarding emergency services policies, First Nations consultation, climate change impacts, and the assessment of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the LPAT's decision on any question of law.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay partial indemnity costs, despite recognizing it as a public interest litigant, because the motion lacked merit and it would be unfair to shift the costs to the municipal taxpayers and the hospital.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums.