Raivo Uukkivi

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment 155 by Acorn NE Stouffville Inc. and Northcape Investments Inc. The parties worked to narrow the scope of the appeals and finalize an Issues List, particularly concerning land use designations and road alignments within the Old Elm Major Transit Station Area.

The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day hearing on the merits and approved the Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Court of Appeal considered whether a beach easement was expressly extinguished by an application to the Registrar of Land Titles.

The lower court had found the deletion was an error and ordered rectification.

The appellate court determined that the application judge erred in law by misinterpreting the application as lacking an express release, despite the dominant owner's clear intent and request to delete the easement.

The appeal was allowed, the rectification order set aside, and the original application dismissed, confirming the easement's extinguishment.

The appellant appealed a development permit issued by the Niagara Escarpment Commission to the applicant for a residential development.

The parties reached a settlement modifying the permit conditions, including updated stormwater management requirements.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Hearing Office found the modified permit consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Niagara Escarpment Plan and the Growth Plan.

The appeal was dismissed and the modified permit was confirmed.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of a development permit, official plan amendment, and zoning by-law amendment for a proposed development, a neighbouring property owner requested Party status.

The neighbour argued that the proposed development would impact its own stormwater management plan and developable area.

The applicant opposed the request, arguing it was too late in the process and would cause prejudice.

The Tribunal denied Party status, finding that adding a new Party at this late stage would unfairly prejudice the applicant and that the neighbour's concerns could be adequately addressed through Participant status.

The neighbour was granted Participant status in each of the proceedings.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant, a municipal councillor and later mayor, appealed a decision finding he contravened the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act by attempting to influence the location of a municipal project near his commercial property.

The application judge ordered his removal from office and a two-year disqualification.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the Integrity Commissioner's jurisdiction, the finding of a pecuniary interest, the admission of expert evidence, the penalty, and the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reviewable errors in the application judge's objective assessment of the conflict, her reliance on the expert valuation report, or her discretionary decisions on penalty and costs.

This was a second Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals against the municipality's approval of zoning by-law amendments and a consent application for a commercial and residential development.

The Tribunal scheduled separate consecutive video hearings for the three related appeals and directed the parties to submit draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists.

The appellants appealed the City's approval of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a commercial and residential development.

At the first case management conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the applicant.

The parties requested a second case management conference to finalize the procedural order and issues list, and to consider the potential consolidation of related appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a second case management conference and directed the parties to submit a draft procedural order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Hamilton's approval of official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the applicant without objection.

The City of Hamilton did not appear and indicated it would not participate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day video hearing and approved the procedural order and issues list.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the property tax assessments of 16 service units located in a mixed-use hotel and residential condominium building.

The appellant argued the units were common elements and should be assessed at a nominal value, while the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation assessed them as 'hotel units' under O. Reg. 282/98.

The Assessment Review Board found that the service units met the statutory definition of 'hotel units' because they were designated as units, used as part of the hotel operations to maintain mechanical systems, and a statutory declaration had been filed by the previous owner.

The Board confirmed the returned assessments based on the pro forma income capitalization approach.

The defendant, Van Drunen and Sons Gravel Limited, brought a motion for a non-suit in a provincial offences case, seeking dismissal of a charge for encumbering a highway contrary to a municipal by-law.

The court granted the motion, finding that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.

The judge determined that the bin in question did not encumber the roadway, the identity of the responsible party (defendant vs. bailee) was ambiguous, and the municipal permit specifically allowed equipment (like the bin) to occupy the road during the relevant hours.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 3000-unit mixed-use community redevelopment.

The parties reached a full settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed development is consistent with provincial policy, conforms to the Growth Plan and Official Plan, and represents good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part to approve the amended planning instruments.

The appellant appealed the municipality's passing of a zoning by-law amendment relating to a proposed religious educational centre and place of worship.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties presented a draft Procedural Order and indicated that ongoing discussions were positive.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled a four-day video hearing to determine the merits of the appeal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit application.

The application sought to subdivide a property into single-dwelling lots and townhouse blocks.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order, finalized the Issues List, and scheduled a four-day video hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Vaughan Official Plan and related site-specific zoning and subdivision applications.

The Tribunal scheduled a Phase 3 Hearing for the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan and approved a final Procedural Order.

A request by an adjacent landowner to join its appeals to the Phase 3 Hearing was denied due to the advanced stage of the proceedings and the need for proper notice.

The appellant appealed the passing of a zoning by-law by the City of Kawartha Lakes, arguing it did not provide adequate permissions for a religious educational centre and place of worship.

At the first Case Management Conference, the parties requested a four-day hearing be scheduled.

The Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing as no draft Procedural Order or Issues List had been submitted, and instead scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed appeal did not meet the three-part test for granting leave.

In accordance with the parties' agreement, costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

Carmel Pharms brought a motion to separate its appeal of a zoning by-law amendment from a consolidated hearing with two other appellants, following a settlement with the Township of Oro-Medonte.

The Tribunal initially denied the motion due to concerns about fair adjudication for the remaining appellants.

After the parties collaborated to revise the draft order, the Tribunal rescinded its initial decision, granted the motion to separate the appeal, and approved the site-specific zoning by-law amendment for Carmel Pharms based on uncontested expert planning evidence.

The applicant apartment association applied to quash City of Toronto By-laws 1121-2019 and 1750-2019, which required apartment owners to provide emergency accommodations to displaced tenants and imposed a full cost recovery fee on landlords if the City provided those services.

The court held that the City lacked the legislative authority to require landlords to provide emergency social services regardless of the cause of the building becoming uninhabitable.

The court quashed the specific provisions imposing the fee and the requirement to provide emergency social services, while upholding the remainder of the by-laws.

The appellant appealed the Nickel District Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission for the construction of a detached dwelling and garage.

During a telephone conference call, the Ontario Land Tribunal reviewed the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a three-day video hearing on the merits for March 2023 and directed the parties to finalize and submit a joint draft Procedural Order.