Steven R. Barnett

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals for a proposed 55-storey mixed-use development in Toronto.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Port Authority and participant status to PS Canada Company ULC.

The City raised a jurisdictional issue regarding pending heritage designations under the Ontario Heritage Act.

On consent, the Tribunal scheduled a nine-day hearing commencing November 30, 2026, and directed the parties to provide a status update by March 2, 2026, regarding the anticipated heritage applications and potential consolidation.

The appellant appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of applications for consent to sever and associated minor variances to create two residential lots.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed undersized lots did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the City's expert planner, concluding that the proposal failed to meet the criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act and that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

The appellant appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing variances for front and rear yard soft landscaping for a recently constructed dwelling.

The appellant had built extensive hardscaping, including a double-wide circular driveway and a large rear patio with a pool, that did not comply with the Zoning By-law or the site plan approved in a previous variance application.

The Tribunal found that the requested variances did not respect and reinforce the existing physical character of the heavily landscaped neighbourhood.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the variances did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or Zoning By-law, were not desirable, and were not minor.

The City of Toronto appealed a Committee of Adjustment decision approving seven variances to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached house at 23 Beechwood Avenue.

The variances related to building length, depth, height, and setbacks.

The Toronto Local Appeal Body dismissed the appeal and confirmed the approval of the variances, finding that they met the four tests under section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

The tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's land use planner, concluding that the proposed house would respect and reinforce the physical character of the neighbourhood, which includes large, irregularly shaped ravine lots, and that the variances were minor in nature with little to no negative impact on neighbours.

The City of Toronto appealed a decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving two variances.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant indicated an intention to withdraw the application.

On consent of both parties, the Toronto Local Appeal Body converted the matter to a written hearing, allowed the appeal, and overturned the Committee of Adjustment's decision without prejudice to future development applications.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a 27-storey mixed-use development.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted participant status to three entities and deferred a fourth request from an unincorporated group.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties time to finalize an Issues List following an upcoming City Council meeting.

The appellant auditors sought to have the respondent province's negligence claim dismissed as statute-barred under a two-year limitation period.

The province had paid out $50 million in loan guarantees in reliance on the appellants' audit report, and later received a second firm's draft report revealing material misstatements in the audited financial statements.

The Court established that a claim is discovered when the plaintiff has actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts upon which a plausible inference of liability on the defendant's part can be drawn.

Applying this standard, the Court found the province discovered its claim when it received the draft report from the second firm, more than two years before commencing its action.

The appeals were allowed and the motions judge's summary judgment dismissing the province's claim as statute-barred was restored.