Raymond Andrew Biggart

The City of Burlington requested a review of a Tribunal decision that refused to dismiss an appeal of the new City Official Plan.

The original decision held that the appeal survived the sale of the subject property because it was 'tied to the land', and directed the City to contact the new owner.

The Tribunal Chair granted the request for review, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Chair held that while Tribunal decisions regarding permitted land uses run with the land (in rem), the right to commence, maintain, or withdraw an appeal is a personal right (in personam).

The original decision was varied to dismiss the appeal without a hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on November 30, 2026, regarding appeals by Stylux Bowmanville Inc. for a proposed development of 97 three-story townhouse units in the Municipality of Clarington.

The order includes the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, a summary of dates, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent to govern the upcoming hearing regarding appeals by the applicant against the municipality.

The appeals concern the protest of site plan application fees and the determination of development charges under the Planning Act and Development Charges Act.

The hearing is scheduled for five days commencing September 21, 2026.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of variances to expand the seating capacity and operating hours of a legal non-conforming restaurant use on a section of Scollard Street where restaurants are prohibited.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed intensification would bring increased adverse impacts to neighbours.

The tribunal held that the proposal failed to maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and did not satisfy the tests of being desirable and minor.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding municipality in the all-inclusive amount of $5,000.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal regarding an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey building at 69 Yorkville Avenue in Toronto.

The order sets out the schedule of events, issues list, and order of evidence for a 9-day hearing scheduled to commence on July 28, 2025.

The appellant sought to modify the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 231 to redesignate a 3.5-acre site from General Employment to Mixed Use Areas, permitting residential development alongside existing employment uses.

The City opposed the conversion, arguing it would fragment the South of Eastern Employment Area and risk land use conflicts with nearby impactful industries.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding that the site was underutilized, not required over the long term for employment purposes, and that the proposed conversion would optimize land use by providing needed housing, including affordable housing, without adversely affecting the viability of the employment area.

The applicants brought a motion seeking an extension of the lapsing date for a Draft Plan of Subdivision approved in 2010.

The Town opposed the extension, arguing the applicants had not used best efforts to clear conditions and that the plan should lapse to allow for greater intensification under current planning policies.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had demonstrated best efforts to clear conditions, noting that delays in servicing were partly attributable to the Town.

The Tribunal also found that the applicants would suffer prejudice if forced to restart the planning process, and that the Draft Plan continues to represent good planning and conforms with current provincial and municipal policies.

The motion was granted and the Draft Plan was extended to October 15, 2026.

The appellant sought costs following a successful appeal regarding a zoning by-law application.

The appellant had submitted an offer to settle 10 days before the appeal hearing.

The respondent municipality argued the offer should not be considered because it lacked time to obtain instructions from the town council, and that it should not pay costs for the initial appearance where the application was stayed.

The Divisional Court rejected both arguments, finding the offer was served within the time required by the Rules and the respondent had supported the erroneous stay.

The court awarded the appellant costs of $29,303.73, including substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan approval to permit a 19-storey mixed-use building.

The City and the applicant reached a settlement, which was opposed by a group of residents and a neighbouring seniors residence, Belmont House, primarily due to concerns over shadow impacts.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development adequately limits shadow impacts on Belmont House in accordance with applicable policies and guidelines, and that the settlement represents good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the Zoning By-law Amendment was approved in principle.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment 231.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day video hearing for Appeal #26 concerning 4646 Dufferin Street and granted a request to substitute Canadian Fuels Association with three of its member companies as parties.

The Tribunal also received updates on the City's intention to bring a motion to dismiss appeals from non-responsive parties and provided directions for the ongoing case management and potential settlement of remaining site-specific appeals.

The appellant operates a licensed cannabis micro-cultivation facility on agriculturally zoned land.

The respondent municipality took the position that the zoning by-law prohibited this use, prompting the appellant to seek a rezoning amendment and a declaration from the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board.

The appellant subsequently brought a Superior Court application for a declaration that the by-law did not prohibit his use.

The application judge adjourned the matter, finding it premature and potentially moot pending the administrative proceedings.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the administrative bodies lacked jurisdiction to interpret the by-law.

Exercising its discretion to decide the application, the Court held that the by-law's prohibition of a 'Medical Marihuana Production Facility' did not apply to the appellant's micro-cultivation facility.

Stouffville Phase 3 East Landowners Group Inc. (Stouffville LOG) brought a motion to be added as a party to an appeal concerning the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville's decision to deny an extension of a draft plan of subdivision approval for Courtney Valley Estates Inc. and Lillipad Developments Inc. Stouffville LOG argued it had a direct interest because its adjacent lands relied on a sanitary sewer connection proposed in the draft plan.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Stouffville LOG lacked a direct policy interest in the lapsing of the draft plan, as alternative servicing options were available.

The Tribunal also concluded that adding Stouffville LOG as a party would prejudice the Town and was not in the public interest.

The applicants appealed the Town's failure to make a decision regarding a proposed plan of subdivision and sought an extension of their draft plan approval, which was set to lapse.

The Town opposed the extension, arguing the applicants had not taken necessary steps to fulfill conditions and that the 2010 draft plan may no longer constitute good planning.

A neighbouring landowners group also requested party status.

The Tribunal scheduled a hearing on the merits for January 2024, directed that the party status request be determined by written motion, and extended the draft approval until a decision is rendered following the merits hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal against the City of Toronto's refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a 61-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the ABC Residents Association/Greater Yorkville Ratepayer’s Association on consent.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day video hearing on the merits for April 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by Cheong Family Holdings Ltd. regarding official plan and zoning by-law amendments for a proposed 29-storey building at 69 Yorkville Avenue in Toronto.

The order establishes the hearing schedule, procedural deadlines, and the consolidated issues list for the 13-day hearing scheduled to commence in December 2024.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment No. 119.

The City provided a status update on its efforts to bring the Official Plan into conformity with Regional Official Plan Amendments 48 and 49 and Provincial Bill 23.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for November 2023, dispensed with the existing Phasing Plan, and cancelled the Phase 1B Natural Heritage hearing to allow parties to focus on settlements and uncontested portions of the Official Plan.

The appellants appealed the Niagara Escarpment Commission's conditional approval of a development permit for an on-farm diversified use (agri-tourism and retail) on the applicant's property.

The central issue was whether the property constituted a Prime Agricultural Area, which is a prerequisite for the proposed use under the Niagara Escarpment Plan.

The Hearing Officers found that the property was not mapped as a Prime Agricultural Area by the Province, and a site-specific agrology study could not override provincial mapping and implementation procedures.

The Hearing Officers recommended that the development permit be refused, and the Minister subsequently refused the application.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J.R. McCarthy J. dated December 22, 2021.

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

The appellants appealed a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) Chair, who had cancelled a TLAB member's decision granting the appellants' application for property severance and minor variances.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness during the review process and that the Chair applied an incorrect standard of review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the TLAB met its duty of procedural fairness by providing notice and an opportunity to make submissions, and that the Chair applied the correct standard of review by identifying compelling grounds of jurisdictional and factual errors before substituting his own findings.