R. Barron

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

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent landowner and participant status to two others.

The Tribunal ordered that the scheduling of a merits hearing be held in abeyance pending the outcome of a related motion for direction regarding a potential consolidated transportation hearing.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 26-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement based on a revised 14-storey proposal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeal was allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including finalization of the by-law and various technical reports.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The parties reached a settlement endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the instruments in principle and withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of technical preconditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its October 10, 2024 decision.

Pursuant to Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the decision was amended to change the party name from the City of Toronto to the City of Markham in both the appearances section and the body of the decision.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference for appeals by TerraBona 7115 Yonge Ltd. against the City's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 36-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to Metrolinx and two adjacent property owners, and participant status to a local resident.

A 13-day hearing was scheduled for May 2025, and a Procedural Order with an Issues List was approved.

The owners appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing minor variances to permit a mixed-use commercial and residential building addition.

The proposal involved adding a third floor and expanding the second floor to create new rental apartments above a ground-floor business.

Neighbours objected primarily to the increased density and rear privacy impacts.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, finding that the proposal met the four tests under the Planning Act.

The tribunal noted the Official Plan's broad support for new rental housing and found that the proposed density and built form would fit within the existing varied character of the neighbourhood.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 40-storey mixed-use tower.

The Tribunal granted party status to the co-applicant, 181 Eglinton Ave.

East, and participant status to the Toronto Lands Corporation and the South Eglinton Davisville Residents Association.

A nine-day hearing was scheduled to commence on February 12, 2024, and the parties were directed to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to permit a 7-storey, 67-unit apartment building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposed transit-supported development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan, and represents good land use planning.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the amendments were approved in principle, with the final order withheld pending finalization of the by-laws and a Section 37 agreement.

During a hearing regarding allegations of bad faith bargaining, the company's counsel sought to use a court reporter to record the proceedings.

The union objected, arguing it diminished the Board's control and prejudiced the union.

The Board ruled that the company could use a court reporter, but the transcript would not be the official record.

The Board further ordered that if the company's counsel intended to refer to the transcript during the hearing, they must notify the other parties and provide copies to the union and the Board at the union's and company's respective expenses.