Tim Duncan

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on a zoning by-law amendment application for a proposed development of stacked townhouses.

At the first Case Management Conference, the Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and participant status to a local resident.

A participant status request from the Pearson Accountability Alliance was denied as the organization did not attend the hearing and the applicant noted that aircraft noise issues were being addressed with the Greater Toronto Airport Authority.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to finalize the procedural order and issues list.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decisions and orders of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000, to be awarded at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit a 21-storey residential building.

The City and TRCA brought a joint motion to strike certain witness statement evidence, which was granted in part.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the proposed development represented good planning, was consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024, and conformed to the applicable York Region Official Plan.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the draft OPA and ZBA in principle, subject to a holding provision requiring a finalized Tree Removal, Compensation and Restoration Mitigation Plan.

The City of Brampton brought a motion for directions seeking approval of modifications to its new Official Plan to resolve multiple appeals.

The Tribunal found that the proposed modifications and unmodified policies had regard for matters of provincial interest, were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and conformed to the Greenbelt Plan and the Region of Peel Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted the motion, approving the modifications and unmodified policies without prejudice to the remaining outstanding appeals.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on November 30, 2026, regarding appeals by Stylux Bowmanville Inc. for a proposed development of 97 three-story townhouse units in the Municipality of Clarington.

The order includes the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, a summary of dates, the list of parties and participants, the issues list, and the order of evidence.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Stylux Bowmanville Inc. against the Municipality of Clarington's failure to make decisions on applications for a 97-unit townhouse development.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority on consent and participant status to Nadine Taylor without objection.

A 15-day hearing was scheduled, and the parties were directed to file a finalized Procedural Order and Issues List.

The applicant appealed the City's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a midrise mixed-use development.

The parties reached a settlement proposal for two buildings of 14 and 17 storeys.

The Tribunal found the proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in conformity with the Official Plan, and representative of good planning.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending the satisfaction of conditions.

The appellant appealed the City of Richmond Hill's refusal of consent applications to sever a property to create two new residential lots, as well as the City's Official Plan Amendment No. 22 and By-law 64-21, which expanded the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area.

The appellant argued that the property was not within the Regulatory Floodplain and that the City's floodplain mapping was flawed.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that the property is located within the Regulatory Floodplain and lacks safe access during flood events.

The Tribunal found that the proposed severances were inconsistent with provincial policies protecting public safety and environmental integrity.

The Tribunal upheld OPA 22 and By-law 64-21, finding them to be grounded in sound planning principles and supported by robust technical analysis, and dismissed the appeals.

The City of Vaughan brought a motion to adjourn the Phase 2B Hearing regarding appeals by the appellant for official plan and zoning by-law amendments.

The City argued that there was insufficient time to prepare for the scheduled January 2026 dates due to the complexity of the issues and the need for expert coordination.

The appellant consented to a short adjournment.

The Tribunal granted the motion and rescheduled the hearing to commence in February 2026.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a corrective order under Rule 24.4 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to amend a previous Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order issued on October 17, 2025.

The correction fixed a typographical error in the spelling of counsel's name for Home Depot of Canada Inc. from Noah Jorden to Noah Gordon.

In all other respects, the original decision remains unchanged.

The appellant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to make a decision on applications to permit a multi-storey residential building containing 490 units.

In this Phase 2A hearing, the Tribunal considered threshold issues regarding natural heritage and hazard lands, including significant valleylands, significant woodlands, significant wildlife habitat, and floodplains.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's evidence established that the proposal would have 'no negative impact' on these features and functions, maintaining consistency with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024.

The Tribunal directed that the appeals advance to a Phase 2B hearing to consider remaining land use planning issues.

This was a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendment for Major Transit Station Areas and the new City Official Plan.

The Tribunal granted party status to 201 County Court Brampton Holdings Inc. on consent.

The parties reported progress in mediation and proposed a written settlement motion once a draft order is finalized.

A subsequent Case Management Conference was scheduled for March 2026 to address outstanding matters and potential consolidation of the appeals.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Application to permit a 4-tower high-rise residential development on a portion of a former golf course, with the remainder dedicated as public open space.

The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority opposed the development, arguing it was located in a hazardous area (erosion hazard) and would negatively impact the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal found that the development site, located on a stable paleo terrace, was safe from natural hazards and that the proposed mitigation and restoration measures would result in no net negative impact on the natural heritage system.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, approving the OPA and ZBA in principle, while adjourning the Site Plan Application to allow the parties to resolve outstanding technical issues.

The Ontario Land Tribunal issued a Procedural Order to govern the upcoming 10-day hearing regarding appeals by Benny Stark Limited against the City of Toronto's failure to adopt requested Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

The amendments seek to permit a mixed-use development comprising seven buildings with 1818 units and a new public park.

The order establishes the issues list, order of evidence, and deadlines for the exchange of witness statements and other materials.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Gabriele Homes Ltd. against the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for an 11-storey mixed-use building.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority on consent.

A request for party status by the Protect Our Ravines Initiative was denied, as their concerns aligned with those of the City and TRCA, but they were offered participant status.

Numerous individuals were granted participant status.

A 15-day merit hearing was scheduled for April 2026, and a Procedural Order was approved.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss appeals of Official Plan Amendments 142, 143, and 144, which related to Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs).

The City argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s. 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act because the appealed policies identified authorized land uses within a PMTSA.

The responding party, White Elm, argued that changing a land use designation from 'Mixed Use' to 'Mixed Use Limited' did not identify an authorized use.

Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the Tribunal agreed with the City, finding that amending a land use designation inherently identifies and limits permitted uses.

The Tribunal granted the motion and dismissed White Elm's appeal, ruling the policy unappealable.

A case management conference was held to schedule the Phase 2A and Phase 2B hearings regarding appeals for a proposed 21-storey residential development in the City of Vaughan.

The Tribunal scheduled a 10-day Phase 2A hearing to address natural heritage and hazard land issues, and a 10-day Phase 2B hearing for remaining planning issues.

The Tribunal also approved the Procedural Order and Issues List on consent of the parties.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's refusal of official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications to facilitate a mixed-use high-rise development.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement on a revised proposal for two towers of 36 and 41 storeys.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the revised instruments consistent with provincial policy and in conformity with applicable official plans.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final orders withheld pending the submission of final instruments and a Transportation Demand Management agreement.

The applicant appealed the City of Brampton's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 29-storey mixed-use building.

The subject property was designated Mixed-Use Two (MU2), which limits height to 20 storeys and density to 3.0 FSI.

The applicant argued that a secondary plan policy allowed for greater height and density with justification, without needing an official plan amendment.

The Tribunal found that the correct density calculation was 9.53 FSI based on net site area.

The Tribunal held that while the exception policy was permissive, it could not be used to 'leapfrog' the maximum height and density of the next higher designation, as doing so would undermine the foundational hierarchy of designations in the Secondary Plan.

The appeal was dismissed as the proposal did not conform to the official plan.

The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant against the City's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

The applications seek to permit a mixed-use development with 1,818 residential units and a new public park.

The Tribunal granted party status to the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and participant status to a local resident.

A 10-day merit hearing was scheduled for February 2026, and the parties were directed to submit a Procedural Order and Issues List.