Articles 2020

When a municipality seeks injunctive relief to restrain the breach of a by-law pursuant to section 440 of the Municipal Act, 2001, the municipality enjoys different rights versus a party seeking standard injunctive relief flowing from the equitable jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Justice.

In determining valuation of an expropriated interest, arbitral tribunals must consider existing planning and zoning regulations. However, the admissibility of evidence concerning post-expropriation planning and zoning changes can often become a pivotal issue in determining the probable highest and best use, as well as the market value of the subject property.

For the professionalism portion of the Law Society’s recent Eight Minute Municipal Lawyer program, I was asked to reflect on managing uncertainty in the land use planning process. Here are my top five tips, most of which come from advice I have received over my longish career. I note that these are written from my perspective as a private practitioner, but I think that the majority are applicable to lawyers practicing in-house as well.

On April 10, 2024, the Provincial Government introduced Bill 185, the Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024. Currently in its second reading, the stated goals of the Bill include expediting housing construction by cutting red tape and streamlining approvals.

On April 10, 2024, the Ontario government (the “Province”) introduced Bill 185: Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (“Bill 185”), which simultaneously reintroduces and repeals prior changes to the planning and development regime in Ontario. This article provides a brief overview of these proposed legislative changes as it relates to planning and development.

On February 8 and 9, 2024, I participated in and attended the Ontario Bar Association’s Municipal, Planning, and Environmental Ontario Legal Conference. My experiences at the conference confirmed the complex nature of these all-too-important legal practice areas.

On Friday, January 26, 2024, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued a Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO), O. Reg. 10/24, reducing the heights of the protected air ambulance flight paths for St. Michael’s Hospital and the Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids).

On October 23, 2023, the Ontario Divisional Court (the “Divisional Court”) issued its decision in Loeb v. Toronto (City) (the “Decision”). The Divisional Court made several findings with respect to the standing of third-party participants in a minor variance application to seek judicial review from Committee of Adjustment decisions and opined on the level of fairness owed to participants in a minor variance hearing.

In Mann v Saugeen Shores, the Applicant claimed Charter violations because of their alleged denial to “meaningfully communicate” with elected officials.

This article reviews a recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Law Society of Ontario v Metrolinx , which dismissed Law Society of Ontario’s motion for an interlocutory injunction to stop Metrolinx from removing eleven trees on the Osgoode Hall site.