Michael Kovacevic

The appellant appealed the City of Hamilton's decision to impose a development charge of $924,705.00 for converting an industrial building into a self-storage facility.

The appellant argued that self-storage fell within the definition of 'Industrial Development' under the 2019 Development Charge By-law, which would have entitled it to a credit offsetting the entire charge.

The Tribunal found that the 2019 By-law, read in context with the underlying background study and North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, intentionally excluded self-storage from the industrial rate.

The appeal was dismissed.

Motions were brought by CastandGrey 5 Corp., CastandGrey 7 Corp., and Hamilton Country Properties Ltd. for party status in the appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton also brought a motion to dismiss the appeals of the Twenty Road West Landowners without a hearing.

The Tribunal granted party status to the moving landowners, finding they had a direct interest in the urban boundary expansion and that their participation would serve the public interest without causing prejudice, provided they sheltered under existing issues.

The Tribunal also granted the City's motion to dismiss the Twenty Road West Landowners' appeals, finding that the landowners had previously agreed to withdraw their appeals in a binding Minutes of Settlement, and their continued pursuit of the appeals was not in good faith.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The parties provided an update, noting that the City of Hamilton Council recently decided against an urban boundary expansion.

The Tribunal scheduled dates for a motion to dismiss, requests for party/participant status, a further Case Management Conference, and an eleven-week hearing commencing in January 2023.

A Procedural Order and Issues List were also approved.

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's apportionment of property taxes for the 2016, 2017, and 2018 taxation years, arguing that the relative assessed values used were incorrect and should be retroactively reduced based on a 2019 Request for Reconsideration settlement.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 356(1)(b) of the Municipal Act because the apportioned taxes had already been paid in full.

The Board further held it had no jurisdiction to alter the relative assessment values, as that authority rests exclusively with the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation under section 356(2).

The appellants appealed the City of Hamilton's Urban Hamilton Official Plan Amendment No. 17 and the Fruitland-Winona Secondary Plan regarding the identification of natural heritage and hydrologic features on their lands.

The parties reached a settlement proposing modifications to the policies and land use designations, supported by uncontroverted ecological and planning evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part, finding that the proposed modifications were consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conformed to the Growth Plan, and represented good planning.

A Case Management Conference was held regarding multiple appeals of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and the Urban Hamilton Official Plan.

The City of Hamilton advised that it is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review that may result in an urban boundary expansion, potentially resolving many appeals.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference for November 4, 2021, to allow time for the City to provide direction on the boundary expansion and for the parties to prepare an updated draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

In the CCAA proceedings of U.S. Steel Canada Inc., the applicant sought an order declaring Bedrock Industries Canada LLC as the Successful Bidder under a sales and investment solicitation process.

The applicant also sought authorization to enter into a Plan Sponsor Agreement and a support agreement with the Province of Ontario.

Several parties, including a union local, the City of Hamilton, and individual retirees, objected to the motion, raising concerns about pensions, taxes, and the fairness of the proposed transaction.

The court granted the requested relief, finding that the proposed transaction was the best available option, the agreements were necessary to facilitate the restructuring, and the rights of the objecting parties to vote on or oppose the ultimate plan of arrangement were preserved.

In a CCAA restructuring proceeding, stakeholders sought disclosure of a settlement agreement between U.S. Steel, its Canadian subsidiary, and the Attorney General of Canada regarding undertakings under the Investment Canada Act.

The CCAA judge held that the agreement was entirely privileged under s. 36 of the ICA.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while s. 36(5) protects the Crown from being compelled to disclose the agreement, this protection does not extend to the private corporations.

The appeal was allowed, and the issue of whether common law settlement privilege barred disclosure was remitted to the CCAA judge.