Audrey Jacob

The Niagara Home Builders' Association appealed the City of Thorold's Development Charges By-law No. 46-2019, challenging the inclusion of four road projects (portions of Barker Parkway and Upper's Lane, and related intersection improvements).

The appellant argued these were 'local services' and thus ineligible for development charges funding.

The Tribunal found that the City's Local Service Policy takes precedence in determining DC eligibility.

Based on their function, Barker Parkway and Upper's Lane were classified as Arterial Roads serving a broader community function, not just the specific subdivision.

Consequently, the Tribunal ruled that the road projects and intersection improvements were properly included as DC eligible growth-related services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Durham Region Home Builder's Association appealed the Town of Ajax's Development Charges By-law No. 50-2018.

The appellant argued that the Town improperly applied Federal Gas Tax funding and that the Benefit to Existing (BTE) allocation for active transportation projects was too low.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Gas Tax funding was not made specifically in respect of the capital costs of the Audley Recreation Centre, and thus did not require a reduction in the development charges.

The Tribunal also accepted the Town's expert evidence that the BTE allocation of 7.5% to 10% for active transportation projects was fair, reasonable, and in accordance with the Development Charges Act.

The appellant brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent's expert reply witness statements, arguing they constituted improper reply evidence and an attempt to split the respondent's case.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the rule against splitting a case applies to the presentation of evidence at a hearing, not to pre-hearing disclosure.

The Tribunal held that the reply evidence was responsive to the appellant's expert reports and that striking the evidence would prejudice the respondent and the public interest.

The appellant was granted the opportunity to file sur-reply witness statements to remedy any potential prejudice.

The appellants appealed the Vaughan Official Plan and the Vaughan Mills Centre Secondary Plan, seeking to convert a portion of their employment lands to a Mixed Use designation to permit residential development.

The tribunal applied the conversion tests under the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

While finding that the proposed concept plan had qualitative merits and could address need, the tribunal concluded that the conversion failed to maintain a significant number of jobs on the lands and would adversely affect the overall viability of the surrounding employment area.

The tribunal denied the requested conversion and the related request to identify the lands as a Primary Centre, directing the parties to prepare modifications for a Phase 2 hearing.