Meet our litigators in this area

Land Use Planning

REGULATORY - Land Use Planning

Our lawyers are frequently retained by clients who are confronted with unusual or novel land use planning issues.

  • We were retained on the first case where the Ontario Municipal Board granted an ex parte interim injunction, and we acted for a municipality on the first and only time an interim control by-law dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. Re Essex (Town) Zoning By-law No. 252 (2002), 44 O.M.B.R. 285 (O.M.B.); London (City) v. RSJ Holdings Inc., 2007 SCC 29.

  • We have been at the leading edge of developments in land use planning law, such as those involving the interaction between land use planning, environmental and heritage issues. In several cases the provincial government has passed legislation to address the changes in the law brought about by our advocacy. 1133373 Ontario Inc. v. York (Regional Municipality), [2001] O.M.B.D. No. 553 (O.M.B.); Re City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment 333; Re Metro Domed Stadium (1986), 19 O.M.B.R. 232, 33 O.M.B.R. 177; See also O. Reg. 345/93 under the Environmental Assessment Act.

  • We are one of the few firms that regularly act on disputes over the establishment of large retail projects. These disputes, commonly known as "store wars" hearings, involve a complex mix of land use planning, market opportunity and competition issues. We have acted for landowners involved in such hearings since long before the advent of big box retailers. Re Cloverdale Shopping Centre and the Township of Etobicoke, [1966] 2 O.R. 439; City of Peterborough and Township of Smith (1980), 31 O.R. (2d) 16; Hammerson Canada Inc. v. Guelph (City) (1999), 39 O.M.B.R. 398 (O.M.B.); Re Guelph (City) Official Plan Redesignate Land Amendment, [2001] O.M.B.D. No. 64 (O.M.B.).