Rodney John Gill

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the proceedings for an appeal regarding a proposed 50-storey residential building at 2350-2352 Yonge Street in Toronto.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on October 6, 2025, for 15 days.

The parties attended a case management conference regarding a land compensation claim under the Expropriation Act.

On consent, the parties requested an amendment to the previously issued procedural order.

The Tribunal rescinded the prior order and issued a revised procedural order setting out the schedule for documentary discovery, expert reports, and a 40-day hearing commencing in June 2025.

The Tribunal held a telephone conference call to receive a status update on the fulfilment of conditions imposed in a previous Interim Order regarding appeals of a failure to adopt an Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment.

The parties provided updates on the outstanding conditions, including the final form of the instruments, a Transportation Impact Study addendum, and a peer review of a combined noise and vibration study.

The Tribunal issued an Interim Order setting deadlines for further updates and directing the City to request prioritization of the peer review.

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 parties sought direction from the Tribunal regarding unresolved issues in implementing a previous decision that partially approved draft plans of subdivision and zoning by-law amendments.

The Tribunal clarified that its previous decision did not deny all potential development of Block 5, Stage 4, and therefore the existing Zone Change (ZC) zoning should remain.

The Tribunal also approved the appellants' broader wording for an easement over Block 6, Stage 4, and confirmed that the conditions of approval should not compel the appellants to reach a specific agreement with the City regarding the conveyance of lands for infrastructure.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by ABC Eglinton LP concerning a proposed 19-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal approved the Draft Procedural Order on consent of the parties and granted participant status to an additional individual.

A settlement in principle was noted between the appellant and one of the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications for a 50-storey residential building.

The parties advised that a settlement had been reached between the applicants and the City, though Metrolinx remained a party due to imminent expropriation of the subject lands.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day contested settlement hearing and approved the Procedural Order to guide the proceedings.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Markham's Official Plan Amendment 53 (Markham Road – Mount Joy Secondary Plan).

On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority and the York Region District School Board.

The parties agreed to pursue Tribunal-led mediation in the first quarter of 2025.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 5, 2025, with the Procedural Order and Issues List deferred pending the outcome of mediation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Nipigon Investments Inc. and Nipigon Property Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan, Zoning By-law, and Site Plan applications for a 50-storey residential building.

The parties advised that a settlement had been reached between the applicants and the City, though Metrolinx was not a party to the settlement.

The Tribunal scheduled a five-day contested settlement hearing and approved the final Procedural Order to guide the future proceedings.

The applicant sought an award of costs of $85,000 against the respondent municipality following a merits hearing, alleging the municipality acted unreasonably, frivolously, and in bad faith by failing to withdraw issues and unnecessarily prolonging the hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the municipality's conduct did not meet the high threshold for a costs award under Rule 23.9 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The municipality had complied with the procedural order, provided expert evidence, and acted respectfully throughout the proceedings.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by ABC Eglinton LP due to the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a 19-storey mixed-use development.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner, approved several participant requests, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference and a 10-day hearing on the merits.

The appellant filed appeals regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications for a 71-storey residential mixed-use building.

At the second Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they were engaged in productive mediation.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a status update and a Draft Procedural Order and Issues List by March 28, 2025, without scheduling further hearing dates at this time.

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 proposed mixed-use development.

At the fourth case management conference, the parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled 12-day merit hearing to allow time for the review of a revised development application and for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, cancelled the merit hearing, and scheduled a fifth case management conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan, Zoning By-law, and Site Plan Amendment applications for a 50-storey residential building.

The Tribunal granted party status to Metrolinx and participant status to several local residents.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 23, 2024, with a draft Procedural Order and Issues List to be submitted prior.

The claimant brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 20-day hearing regarding compensation for an expropriated leasehold interest.

The claimant sought the adjournment to pursue a Superior Court application, arguing that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make determinations under section 41 of the Expropriations Act regarding the abandonment of expropriated land.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, noting the late timing of the request, the lack of an emergency, the prejudice to the ready respondent, and the Tribunal's interest in maintaining its fixed hearing schedule.

The Tribunal also observed, without deciding, that it arguably has jurisdiction to make findings of fact under section 41.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding multiple appeals against the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 588 and By-law No. 1144-2022, which concern alternative parkland dedication rates.

The City requested consolidation of the appeals.

The Tribunal determined that the site-specific appeals of the OPA are distinguishable from the general appeals of the by-law, and ordered that the matters be heard together but not consolidated.

The Tribunal directed the City to provide a written status report by December 20, 2024, as the parties await a provincial regulation related to section 42 of the Planning Act.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application for a proposed 23-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement reducing the building height to 16 storeys and making other design modifications.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement consistent with provincial policies and the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approving the Zoning By-law Amendment in principle while withholding the final order pending the fulfillment of engineering and servicing conditions.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a mixed-use residential development, the Tribunal considered a request for Party status by a local resident.

Despite opposition from the applicant, the Tribunal granted Party status based on the resident's commitment to retain legal counsel and call expert evidence.

The Tribunal also scheduled a further Case Management Conference and a 12-day merit hearing.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Regional Municipality of Durham's Development Charges By-law No. 42-2023.

The Tribunal approved a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List, scheduled a 20-day merit hearing to commence in February 2025, and granted a request to change the status of Fieldgate Developments and Umiak Investments Limited from Party to Participant.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications to permit an 8-storey residential addition above an existing church.

At a settlement hearing, the Tribunal accepted uncontested expert evidence in land use planning and heritage conservation that the revised proposal represents appropriate intensification, respects the heritage resource, and conforms to applicable provincial and municipal planning policies.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with the final order withheld pending the satisfaction of several conditions, including the finalization of the planning instruments and a Heritage Easement Agreement.