Stephanie Brazzell

Several property owners brought motions seeking party status and orders pursuant to subsection 34(31) of the Planning Act to deem Zoning By-law No. 608-2024 in force for their respective properties.

The by-law, along with Official Plan Amendment No. 727, was adopted by the City of Toronto to permit gentle residential intensification along major streets but was appealed city-wide by 2856973 Ontario Inc. Relying on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found that scoping the appeals to exclude the moving parties' lands would not create conformity issues and would facilitate timely redevelopment.

The Tribunal granted the motions, deemed the by-law in force for the specified properties, and permitted the moving parties to withdraw from the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the development of 18 townhouse units.

The parties reached a settlement on the zoning appeal.

Based on uncontested expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed development represents appropriate intensification, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conforms to the Official Plan.

The Tribunal approved the settlement and allowed the appeal in part to amend the zoning by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a procedural order to govern the proceedings for an appeal concerning Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 727 and Zoning By-law 608-2024 in the City of Toronto.

The order establishes the organization of the hearing, pre-hearing requirements, a summary of dates, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the proposed order of evidence.

The hearing is scheduled to commence on November 3, 2025, for a duration of five days.

At a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 727 and Zoning By-Law No. 608-2024, the Tribunal granted party status to several landowners.

The Tribunal also granted motions pursuant to section 34(31) of the Planning Act to geographically scope the appeals, deeming the Zoning By-law to have come into force for specific properties, allowing their redevelopment to proceed while the broader appeals continue.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a site plan application for a nine-storey residential building within the statutory timeframe.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that they had made progress but a dispute remained regarding road widening.

The Tribunal initially scheduled a three-day merit hearing, but at the parties' request, converted it to a one-day telephone case conference to allow for further settlement discussions.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to geographically scope the appellant's appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 727 and Zoning By-law No. 608-2024 to only the appellant's property, and to scope the appeals to only the specific policies and provisions at issue.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for geographic scoping, finding that the appellant's concerns were city-wide and not limited to a specific site.

The Tribunal granted the request to scope the appeals to the specific policies and provisions at issue, deeming the unappealed portions of the instruments to have come into effect.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 2856973 Ontario Inc. against the City of Toronto for failing to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan application within the statutory timeframes.

The proposed development seeks to permit 18 back-to-back townhouses.

The Tribunal reviewed and approved a consent Procedural Order submitted by the parties and scheduled a five-day video hearing on the merits to commence on April 1, 2025.

A first Case Management Conference was held for an appeal by the developer concerning the value of a cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution paid under protest to the municipality.

The Tribunal issued a Procedural Order and scheduled a two-day video hearing for May 2025.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision regarding a site plan application.

At the second Case Management Conference, the applicant requested that a hearing on the merits be scheduled.

The City requested an additional Case Management Conference to allow time for the related zoning by-law to be finalized, which would inform the issues list.

The Tribunal declined to schedule the merit hearing without a full understanding of the issues list and scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a third Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Mattamy (Eglinton) Limited for the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision.

The parties requested a further CMC in the fall to allow time for an ongoing Environmental Assessment in the Golden Mile area to unfold.

The Tribunal agreed and scheduled a fourth CMC for October 31, 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued an amending decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 7, 2024.

The amendment corrected the overall height of the proposed 91-storey mixed-use building from 338.3 m to 328.4 m.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application to increase the permitted height of a mixed-use building from 85 to 94 storeys.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to permit a 91-storey building.

Based on uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised proposal consistent with provincial policies and the City's Official Plan, noting it would provide additional housing and serve as a landmark without creating unacceptable adverse impacts.

The appeal was allowed in part and the amendments were approved in principle.

The parties requested an adjournment of the third Case Management Conference on consent to continue mediation discussions regarding appeals for the failure of the City of Toronto to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications.

The Tribunal scheduled a fourth Case Management Conference for September 18, 2024, to allow the parties to determine whether a resolution could be attained.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by 17 Elm GP Inc. against the City of Toronto for failing to make decisions on Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval applications within statutory timeframes.

The Tribunal granted party status to Toronto Community Housing Corporation, Westerkirk Capital Inc., and The Hospital for Sick Children, and participant status to TSCC2920.

The Tribunal directed the parties to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List and scheduled a 10-day merit hearing to commence by video on January 13, 2025.

The applicant appealed the Township's failure to make a decision on applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Plan of Subdivision to permit a 59-unit residential subdivision.

At the third Case Management Conference, the parties requested to convert the previously scheduled hearing into a CMC to allow more time for settlement discussions.

The Tribunal granted the request, approved an updated Procedural Order and Issues List, and scheduled a new 7-day video hearing for May 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a fourth Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development at 1891 Eglinton Avenue East in Toronto.

The applicant submitted a revised application, and the parties agreed to a revised Procedural Order and a new 14-day Merit Hearing date.

The Tribunal approved the revised Procedural Order, scheduled the Merit Hearing for March 11, 2024, and directed the parties' planning experts to provide an agreed Statement of Facts.

The appellant appealed the City's failure to make a decision on a proposed Plan of Subdivision and requested that a merit hearing be scheduled.

The City opposed the request, arguing it was premature to schedule the hearing before a related Official Plan Amendment appeal decision was released.

The Tribunal agreed with the City, finding it premature to schedule a merit hearing because the parties had not yet submitted a draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding appeals of the City of Burlington's New Official Plan and Official Plan Amendment No. 119.

The City provided a status update on its efforts to bring the Official Plan into conformity with Regional Official Plan Amendments 48 and 49 and Provincial Bill 23.

The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC for November 2023, dispensed with the existing Phasing Plan, and cancelled the Phase 1B Natural Heritage hearing to allow parties to focus on settlements and uncontested portions of the Official Plan.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit a mixed-use development with four residential towers and a hotel.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that reduced tower floor plates and overall gross floor area.

The Tribunal held a settlement hearing and, relying on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, found the revised proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and in conformity with the Growth Plan and Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the Zoning By-law Amendments in principle, withholding its final order pending the submission of final by-law drafts and confirmation of infrastructure capacity.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment for a mixed-use development at 1960 Eglinton Avenue East.

The parties reached a settlement and presented a revised proposal that aligns with the Golden Mile Secondary Plan.

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

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and approved the amendment in principle, withholding its final order pending the finalization of the amendment's form and the resolution of related appeals.