Sarah J. O’Connor

The moving party, a respondent in the underlying application, brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to vary a consent order that had approved a share purchase agreement, alleging newly discovered fraud by the responding party.

The moving party sought to have the share sale proceeds paid into court as security for claims in related actions, or alternatively, a Mareva injunction restraining the responding party from dealing with the proceeds.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that Rule 59.06(2) cannot be used to amend the terms of a contract approved by a consent order.

The court also denied the Mareva injunction, finding no evidence to support a reasonable inference of a real risk that the responding party would dissipate or remove the assets to avoid a judgment.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision to permit a mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement agreement for a development containing three buildings and a public park.

Based on uncontested expert land use planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments represent good planning, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conform to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the OPA and ZBA on an interim basis, and adjourned the subdivision appeal sine die.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on August 11, 2025.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicants against the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit a 50-storey residential building containing 620 units.

The order sets out the issues list, order of evidence, and procedural dates for the exchange of witness statements and expert reports.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval for a high-density residential development.

The parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal featuring reduced building heights and density.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and conforms to the City's Official Plan.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the Zoning By-law Amendment approved in principle on an interim basis pending finalization of the instrument and satisfaction of pre-requisite conditions.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for a proposed 32-storey mixed-use building.

The appeals were filed due to the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to an adjacent property owner.

On consent, the Tribunal consolidated the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment appeals and scheduled an 8-day merit hearing.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant against the City of Toronto for its failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application within the prescribed timeframe.

The application proposes a 26-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted participant status to a neighbouring property owner, scheduled a ten-day merit hearing, and approved the Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal from orders requiring them to post security for costs and pay costs of the motions.

The underlying action involved claims of environmental contamination against the municipality and its employees.

The court applied the Paulsson factors and found that the moving parties' delay was lengthy, their explanations for the delay were not compelling, and the overall justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendant, Fletcher’s Fields Limited, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiffs, Robert Llewellyn Jenkins (as trustee for the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball) and the Estate of Samuel Harrison Ball.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a costs award and had not demonstrated impecuniosity or a good chance of success on the merits.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to post $20,000 as security for costs and awarded $10,000 in costs to the defendant, with both amounts payable within 60 days.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 60-storey mixed-use building.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 36-storey residential building.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the hearing of appeals by SLH Lakeshore Inc. concerning the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on zoning by-law amendment and site plan control applications.

The applications propose a mixed-use development with two residential towers.

The order sets out the schedule for the exchange of evidence, witness statements, and other pre-hearing requirements leading up to an 8-day video hearing scheduled to commence on May 26, 2025.

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 applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Approval applications to permit a 45-storey residential building.

The parties reached a settlement, which was endorsed by City Council.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with the Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the amendments in principle on an interim basis, and deferred the site plan appeal.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of an official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

At the second case management conference, the parties requested to convert the scheduled merit hearing into a case management conference because revised plans submitted by the applicant did not result in a settlement.

The Tribunal adjourned the merit hearing, directed the filing of a new procedural order and issues list, and scheduled a new nine-day merit hearing for July 2025.

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

The parties reached a settlement for a 70-storey mixed-use building incorporating heritage retention.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the settlement proposal consistent with provincial policies and municipal plans.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments in principle, and withheld its final order pending the satisfaction of several conditions.

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 third Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed 60-storey mixed-use development at 295 Jarvis Street, the Tribunal considered a late request for party status from a tenant of the subject property.

Given extenuating circumstances and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted the tenant party status.

The Tribunal also scheduled a hearing in writing to consider a settlement agreement reached between the parties.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order on consent of the parties to govern the procedures leading up to and including a 15-day hearing scheduled to commence on February 10, 2025.

The hearing concerns appeals by the applicant regarding the City's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and failure to approve a Site Plan Control application for a mixed-use development.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals from the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Application for a 23-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Draper Street Residents Association Inc. and participant status to a local resident.

The Tribunal also scheduled a third Case Management Conference and a nine-day merit hearing for March 2025, and approved the updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

The applicant filed a motion pursuant to s. 34(10.5) of the Planning Act to determine the completeness of its application for a zoning by-law amendment.

The city had previously deemed the application incomplete.

At the first case management conference, the parties advised that they were actively engaged in discussions to resolve the issues and requested an adjournment.

The tribunal adjourned the matter sine die, directing the parties to provide an update within two weeks.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the applicant under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the municipality's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment Application for a 12-storey mixed-use building.

The parties requested scheduling of a second CMC and a Merit Hearing to allow for ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal ordered a second CMC for September 11, 2024, and a seven-day Merit Hearing commencing January 28, 2025.