Mark Richard Noskiewicz

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.

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.

The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the City of Toronto's Official Plan Amendment No. 486 (King Spadina Secondary Plan).

Four non-appellant property owners requested party status.

The Tribunal found that three owners had a direct interest and added them as parties, contingent on filing a list of issues to shelter under.

A fourth owner, who did not make submissions prior to the OPA's adoption, was also added as a party because they owned lands within the OPA area and were directly affected.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a final draft Procedural Order.

A land developer sought a declaration that a municipality could not impose future development charges on undeveloped land because of a prior development agreement from 1980.

The municipality refused to recognize a credit for development charges previously paid, and the developer’s appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board was dismissed as out of time under Ontario Regulation 82/98.

The court held that the regulation required developers to apply for recognition of development charge credits before the October 31, 1999 sunset deadline.

Paragraph 17.2 of the regulation did not create a separate process for resolving conflicts between development agreements and development charge by-laws.

The application was also barred by issue estoppel because the same issue had been determined by the tribunal.

The appellant municipality appealed a decision quashing a by-law that authorized a licence agreement for a jet boat tour operator to use a municipal dock.

The application judge had found the by-law contravened the Planning Act because the use did not conform to the Official Plan's 'Conservation' designation and was not a legal non-conforming use.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the jet boat operation was a legal non-complying use under the Official Plan, as it was lawfully established by a prior by-law before the Plan was adopted.

The Court also found the licence agreement was not an unlawful disposition of land and did not create an illegal monopoly.

Following the disposition of several appeals, the court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful municipal parties.

The court applied the criteria under Rule 57.01, considering the complexity of the proceedings and the amounts at stake.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis to the City of Mississauga, the City of Burlington, the Region of Halton, and Peel Region, with some reductions made to the amounts claimed to ensure they were fair and reasonable.

Following the dismissal of two related appeals brought by groups of developers, the successful municipal respondents sought costs.

The City of Mississauga sought partial indemnity costs of $70,379.25, while the Region of Halton and City of Burlington sought full indemnity costs of approximately $176,000.

The Court of Appeal determined that costs should follow the event on a partial indemnity scale.

Considering the complexity of the issues, the prior proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board and Divisional Court, and the consolidated hearing, the court awarded $50,000 to Mississauga and $50,000 to Halton and Burlington.

Developers appealed decisions of the Divisional Court regarding the interpretation of 'conflict' under O. Reg. 82/98 between pre-existing subdivision agreements and municipal development charge by-laws.

The Court of Appeal held that the Divisional Court correctly applied a standard of correctness to the Ontario Municipal Board's decisions.

The Court affirmed that a conflict exists only if the subdivision agreement, properly interpreted, precludes the infrastructure charges imposed by the development charge by-law.

The appeals and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Several municipalities appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the interpretation of transitional provisions under the Development Charges Act, 1997.

The OMB had ruled that pre-existing subdivision agreements requiring developers to pay lot levies conflicted with new development charge by-laws, thereby exempting developers from paying the new charges.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was correctness and found that the OMB erred in law.

The Court ruled that a conflict only exists if the subdivision agreement expressly forbids the imposition of future development charges.

Consequently, the municipalities' appeals were generally allowed, and the developers' appeals were dismissed, though developers were entitled to credits for both eligible and ineligible capital costs previously paid.