S. Fleming

The applicant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of a minor variance application to permit the construction of an 8-unit multiple dwelling with reduced parking, reduced rear yard setback, and increased lot coverage.

The Ontario Land Tribunal allowed the appeal and authorized the variances, accepting uncontested expert planning evidence that the proposal represents appropriate residential intensification, is transit-supportive, and meets the four tests under the Planning Act.

The Ontario Land Tribunal conducted a Case Management Conference regarding numerous appeals of the City of Vaughan's Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 and Transitional By-law No. 039-2022.

The Tribunal granted party status to several entities, consolidated the proceedings for both by-laws, and set deadlines for filing comments.

Additionally, the Tribunal approved a settlement regarding the property at 4603 and 4611 Highway 7, amending the zoning by-law to correct site-specific development standards based on uncontested planning evidence.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a proposed plan of subdivision and related amendments.

The parties agreed to minor changes to the draft plan conditions previously approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, primarily relating to a new multi-use trail.

Relying on the uncontested land use planning evidence of the City's expert, the Tribunal approved the revised draft plan conditions.

The applicant appealed the City of Hamilton's failure to make decisions on applications for an official plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and plan of subdivision to permit a 630-unit residential development.

At the second Case Management Conference, the Tribunal scheduled a 15-day hearing to commence in May 2023.

The Tribunal also ordered the parties to submit a final or draft Procedural Order by August 5, 2022, to narrow the issues for the hearing.

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 mixed-use development consisting of an 11-storey building and a 6-storey apartment building.

The parties reached a settlement prior to the hearing.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan, and in conformity with the City's Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final instruments and the execution of a section 37 agreement.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by the owner of 33 Perdue Court from the Town of Caledon's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for truck parking.

The Tribunal ordered the appellant to file a revised site plan, set dates for the Town's comments and a revised issues list, and scheduled a three-day hearing for September 2022.

The Town of Grimsby brought a motion for discovery seeking extensive financial and development documentation from the applicant, Rosebay Construction Inc., in a dispute over the valuation of land for a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment.

The Town sought the documents to conduct a new appraisal using a Residual Land Value methodology, having previously relied on a Direct Comparison Approach.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that ordering production at this late stage would be prejudicial to the applicant, cause significant delay, and fail to offer a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the proceeding.

The appellant appealed the quantum of a cash-in-lieu of parkland payment in the amount of $4,287,591.44.

At the scheduled hearing, the parties requested the matter proceed as a Case Management Conference to explore Tribunal-led mediation.

The Tribunal tabled the Town's motion for discovery and the draft Procedural Order, and scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow parties to obtain mediation instructions.

The applicant sought to quash four municipal by-laws permitting the development of an arena and casino outside the downtown area, alleging statutory non-compliance, procedural unfairness, disqualifying bias, and bad faith.

The court found that the municipality complied with the Planning Act and gaming regulations, provided adequate public consultation, and that the council members did not exhibit disqualifying bias or act in bad faith.

The application was dismissed.