Raj Kehar

The appellant appealed the respondent's failure to make a decision on a conservation permit application within 120 days.

At a case management conference, the parties requested scheduling a further conference to await a pending decision from the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and to schedule an eight-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal granted the requests, scheduling a further case management conference for August 2025 and a merit hearing for February 2026.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss appeals of Official Plan Amendments 142, 143, and 144, which related to Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs).

The City argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act because the appealed policies identified authorized land uses within a PMTSA.

The responding party, White Elm, argued that changing a land use designation from 'Mixed Use' to 'Mixed Use Limited' did not identify an authorized use.

Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the Tribunal agreed with the City, finding that amending a land use designation inherently identifies and limits permitted uses.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed White Elm's appeal, ruling the policy unappealable.

A case management conference was held to schedule the Phase 2A and Phase 2B hearings regarding appeals for a proposed 21-storey residential development in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day Phase 2A hearing to address natural heritage and hazard land issues, and a 10-day Phase 2B hearing for remaining planning issues.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

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

The parties reached a settlement endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending submission of the final instruments.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered requests for participant status and the consolidation of three appeals relating to a proposed 38-unit residential redevelopment on a property subject to a heritage designation.

The Tribunal granted participant status to several neighbouring property owners on consent.

Finding that the appeals involved the same property, proposed development, and common heritage issues, the Tribunal consolidated the appeals to ensure an efficient and cost-effective hearing.

A procedural order and issues list were also approved.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals to the City of Kawartha Lakes' new Rural Zoning By-law.

One appellant withdrew, and another reached a partial settlement.

The Tribunal directed that the remaining appeals be heard separately and scheduled a third Case Management Conference for August 2025.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Vaughan brought a motion for directions to phase the hearing of an appeal regarding a proposed 21-storey residential development.

The moving parties sought a Phase 2A hearing to determine natural heritage and hazard issues (the permissible building envelope) before a Phase 2B hearing on remaining planning issues.

The appellant argued the motion was barred by issue estoppel due to a prior review disposition.

The Tribunal found issue estoppel did not apply, as the prior disposition did not decide the phasing request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that determining the permissible building envelope is a threshold issue and that phasing the hearing would provide the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the appeals.

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Vaughan brought a motion requesting a phased hearing for appeals concerning a proposed 21-storey residential development on lands with environmental designations.

The moving parties sought a Phase 2A hearing to determine the permissible building envelope based on natural heritage and hazard issues, followed by a Phase 2B hearing for remaining planning issues.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing it was barred by issue estoppel due to a prior review disposition.

The Tribunal found that issue estoppel did not apply, as the prior disposition did not decide the phasing request.

The Tribunal granted the motion, concluding that the environmental issues are threshold matters and that a phased approach would provide the most fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the appeals.

The Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6.

Several appellants withdrew their appeals.

The remaining appellants, Harry and Pamela Harakh, consented to scoping their appeal to specific lands.

The Tribunal ordered that OPA 18.6 comes into effect, except for the policies and schedules applying to the scoped lands, and scheduled a motion hearing regarding jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a heritage designation by-law concerning the subject property.

At a Case Management Conference, the appellant requested that a hearing date be set for late 2025 and a subsequent CMC be scheduled to consider consolidating this appeal with anticipated appeals of related Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and demolition permit applications.

The Town did not object.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for April 2025 and a 10-day hearing for October 2025 to allow time for potential consolidation and mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Kawartha Lakes' new Rural Zoning By-law, which consolidates 14 existing by-laws.

The Tribunal granted participant status to one individual, consolidated the Mariposa appeals, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference as well as merit hearings for specific appellants.

Procedural directions were issued for the submission of Draft Procedural Orders and Issues Lists.

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

At the fifth Case Management Conference, the parties advised the Tribunal that a revised proposal had been submitted and the City was supportive of a settlement regarding the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The Tribunal scheduled a two-day settlement hearing and directed the parties to provide settlement materials in advance.

The applicant brought a motion for directions requesting that its Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 38-unit development be deemed complete by the Town of Fort Erie.

The Town had previously issued a Notice of Incomplete Application, demanding additional materials including a peer review of the Heritage Impact Assessment and a Comprehensive Servicing Study.

The Town did not oppose the motion.

Relying on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found that the applications met the requirements of the Planning Act and the Town's Official Plan.

The motion was granted and the applications were deemed complete.

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

Following negotiations, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 10-storey, 50-unit mid-rise building.

Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and good land use planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several technical conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to render decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendments to facilitate a partial redevelopment of the Sheridan Centre lands with two 15-storey residential buildings.

Following Tribunal-led mediation, the parties reached a settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policy, in conformity with the applicable official plans, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final orders withheld pending submission of the final instruments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding site-specific appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 18.8 for the Oak Ridges Local Centre in the City of Richmond Hill.

The Tribunal scheduled two separate five-day hearings for the appeals and issued the corresponding Procedural Orders.

The Tribunal also acknowledged that OPA 18.8 is in force and effect on a plan-wide basis, save for the site-specific appeals.

The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding site-specific appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 18.8 for the Oak Ridges Local Centre in the City of Richmond Hill.

The appellants confirmed their appeals were scoped to their individual properties.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the unappealed portions of OPA 18.8 came into force pursuant to s. 17(39) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day hearing for the Streamgrove and Worthington appeals to be heard together, and a separate five-day hearing for the Yonge and Bloomington appeal, issuing procedural orders for both.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal considered appeals of the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 18.5.

The appellants confirmed their appeals were scoped on a site-specific basis to 9218 Yonge Street and 9251 Yonge Street.

The Tribunal ordered that OPA 18.5 is in force and effect on a plan-wide basis, save and except for the two site-specific addresses, pursuant to subsection 17(39) of the Planning Act.

The Tribunal also approved a Draft Procedural Order on consent to govern the upcoming merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicants against the conservation authority's refusal of a permit application for a residential dwelling.

The parties indicated they would seek Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal approved the Procedural Order and scheduled an eight-day video hearing to commence on May 26, 2025.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Richmond Hill's Official Plan Amendment No. 41 (Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan).

The parties advised that one appeal was subject to a pending settlement and the other was subject to ongoing applications that could resolve the appeal.

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal adjourned the appeals sine die and directed the parties to provide a status update by December 1, 2025.