S. Garrod

During a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105, the Tribunal heard an unopposed motion to substitute Velcor Enterprises Limited as an Appellant in place of Caveze Investments Limited.

Velcor had acquired the lands previously owned by Caveze and intended to rely on the same issues.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that Velcor satisfied the legislative tests to be a party and its presence was necessary to adjudicate the issues effectively.

The appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to make a decision regarding a site plan approval application.

At a Case Management Conference, the Tribunal heard an unopposed motion to substitute a new corporate entity as the appellant, as it had recently acquired the subject property.

The Tribunal granted the motion under Rule 8.2, finding the new owner's presence necessary to effectively adjudicate the proceeding, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The Appellant appealed the City of Brampton's failure to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit warehouse distribution and office uses.

The parties reached a settlement regarding the zoning by-law amendment for the Phase 2 lands.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed zoning by-law amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and applicable official plans.

The Tribunal allowed the zoning by-law amendment appeal in part to approve the settlement and dismissed the official plan amendment appeal at the Appellant's request.

The City of Brampton brought a motion on consent seeking modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105 (OPA No. 105) regarding the Highway 427 Industrial Secondary Plan Area.

The City sought to modify the boundaries of the natural heritage system in the Rainbow Creek corridor to align with the Rainbow Creek Master Environmental Servicing Plan Addendum, and to approve OPA No. 105 for specific lands.

Based on uncontradicted expert planning evidence and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal found the modifications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan, and having regard to matters of provincial interest.

The Tribunal granted the motion and scheduled a Case Management Conference for remaining appeals.

The appellant appealed the municipality's failure to make a decision on a site plan approval application.

At a case management conference, the parties reported optimism regarding settlement discussions and requested more time.

The Tribunal scheduled a further case management conference to receive an update on settlement and to consider a draft procedural order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment No. 2006-105 and Orlando Corporation's appeals concerning the City's failure to approve its Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The City indicated its intent to bring a motion to modify the Official Plan Amendment, and Orlando Corporation announced a proposed settlement of its zoning appeal, subject to the City's motion.

The Tribunal set a schedule for the filing of motion and settlement materials and scheduled a telephone conference hearing to consider both matters.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal, which denied her request to designate her property as 'Farm Property Class' for reduced tax rates.

The Tribunal found she failed to meet the minimum gross farm income requirement and did not qualify for an exemption due to an unusual production year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave, finding that the applicant's grounds of appeal raised factual issues rather than questions of law.