Jaclyn Hall

The appellant home builders' association appealed the respondent municipality's development charge by-laws.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the by-laws, including shifting certain Parks & Recreation project costs to a post-period benefit, removing a library project from the eligible costs, and deferring residential development charge payments to the occupancy permit stage.

Based on uncontroverted expert planning evidence, the Tribunal found the modified by-laws complied with the Development Charges Act and approved the settlement.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's Development Charges By-law No. 0133-2022.

The parties reached a settlement to shift 37 roads projects from in-period eligible costs to post-period benefits, resulting in rate reductions for residential, industrial, and non-industrial uses.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert evidence that the amendments conform with the Development Charges Act and approved the amended schedules to the by-law.

Several landowners appealed the City of Barrie's Development Charge By-law No. 2023-74.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement resolving all 51 issues in dispute.

The City brought a motion to amend the by-law to reduce the residential and non-residential development charge rates in accordance with the settlement.

Based on the uncontradicted expert planning and land economics evidence, the Tribunal found the proposed amendments appropriate and in conformity with the Development Charges Act.

The appeals were allowed in part to implement the amended rates.

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 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.