Craig Binning

The appellants appealed the Town of the Blue Mountains' Development Charges By-law No. 2024-29.

The parties reached a settlement involving adjustments to eligible projects, benefit shares, and infrastructure capacities, resulting in lower development charge rates for parks, recreation, roads, water, and wastewater.

Based on uncontested expert evidence in land economics and municipal finance, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments fair, reasonable, and in conformity with the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part and approved the amended by-law.

The appellant appealed the Town's decision to dismiss his complaint regarding development charges (DCs) levied upon his application for a building permit.

The appellant argued he was double-charged for water services, having previously paid a Local Improvement Charge (LIC) for a watermain.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the LIC and DCs were separate and distinct charges authorized under different legislation; the LIC funded localized infrastructure, while the DCs funded Town-wide water services and supply.

The Appellants appealed the Town of Innisfil's Community Benefits Charge By-law.

The parties reached a full uncontested settlement.

Based on the uncontroverted expert affidavit evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed settlement and amendments to the by-law represented an appropriate recovery of the charge to facilitate growth and complied with the Planning Act.

The Tribunal approved the settlement and amended the by-law accordingly.

The appellant appealed the City of Markham's calculation of development charges for 20 disputed units in a residential development, arguing they should be classified as 'Large Apartment' rather than 'Multiple Dwelling Unit'.

The appellant contended that the units' size and servicing needs were akin to apartments and that the charges exceeded the capital costs arising from the increase in need for services.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the built form of the units, which lacked a shared corridor and had separate entrances, caused them to function like ground-related housing.

The Tribunal concluded the units were correctly categorized as 'Multiple Dwelling Unit' under the City's by-law.

The appellants appealed the non-decision of the York Regional Council regarding a complaint seeking a refund of overpaid development charges.

The dispute centered on whether York's application of its interest rate policy to frozen development charge rates resulted in a total charge that exceeded the historic level of service, contrary to the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal found that the interest provisions of the Act do not permit a municipality to charge more than what is needed to cover the cost of services.

The appeal was allowed, and York was ordered to refund the overpaid amount of $478,158.17 plus interest.

The appellant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal regarding the classification of 20 dwelling units for the purpose of calculating development charges under the City of Markham and Regional Municipality of York by-laws.

The appellant argued the units should be classified as 'large apartments' rather than 'multiple unit dwellings,' seeking a refund of charges paid under protest.

The Tribunal interpreted the specific definitions in both by-laws.

Under the Region's by-law, the Tribunal found the units lacked a common entrance to grade and thus constituted multiple unit dwellings, dismissing the appeal against the Region.

Under the City's by-law, the Tribunal found the units met the definition of a 'triplex' and therefore qualified as 'large apartments,' allowing the appeal against the City and ordering a refund of $142,440.

The appellants brought motions for directions regarding appeals of the Community Benefits Charge (CBC) By-laws adopted by the City of Toronto and the City of Mississauga.

The appellants sought a determination that the Ontario Land Tribunal has the jurisdiction to reduce the 4% CBC rate prescribed by the by-laws and Ontario Regulation 509/20, and to exclude non-residential gross floor area from the charge.

The Tribunal found that it does not have the jurisdiction to vary the 4% rate, as the rate is prescribed by provincial regulation and the legislative scheme confers exclusive jurisdiction on municipalities to set the rate up to the prescribed maximum.

The Tribunal also found it lacks jurisdiction to add exemptions or clarify the by-laws to exclude non-residential gross floor area, as this would be tantamount to adding an exemption contrary to s. 37(24)(b) of the Planning Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal struck the appellants' issues and dismissed Dunpar's appeal against the Toronto By-law.

The appellants appealed the Town of New Tecumseth's Development Charges By-law 2021-165 under section 14 of the Development Charges Act.

The parties reached a settlement proposing amendments to the schedules of the by-law.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of a professional land economist and the consent of the parties, the Tribunal found the proposed adjustments to be reasonable, in the public interest, and in accordance with the Act.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law schedules.

The appellant appealed the municipality's Community Benefits Charge By-law under s. 37(17) of the Planning Act, arguing that the calculation method failed to exclude existing pre-development buildings.

The parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law to align with recent changes introduced by Bill 23 to s. 37(32) of the Planning Act.

Supported by expert land economics evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendment consistent with provincial policies and applicable official plans.

The appeal was allowed in part to amend the by-law accordingly.

The appellant appealed the Town of Innisfil's Development Charge By-law No. 104-18.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement to amend the by-law's schedules regarding town-wide and area-specific water and wastewater charges.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of a land economist, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments complied with the Development Charges Act and that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

The appeal was allowed and the by-law was amended accordingly.

The appellants appealed the City's Development Charge By-law.

The dispute centered on whether a portion of a road crossing through the appellants' properties should be classified as an Arterial Road or a Major Collector Road.

The City argued it was a Major Collector Road and thus a 'local service' for which development charges could not be imposed, requiring the developers to pay the construction costs.

The Tribunal found that the road portion was an Arterial Road, not a local service, and therefore subject to the imposition of development charges.

The Tribunal directed the City to fund the costs through development charges or general revenues and prohibited the City from recovering the costs from the appellants as a condition of subdivision approval.