Michael Nemanic

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals by Dunpar Homes against the City of Toronto's failure to make a decision on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

The Tribunal granted party status to Dundas Developments Limited without objection.

Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. converted its status from party to participant.

The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day video hearing to commence on October 28, 2024, and issued a Procedural Order to govern the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the City of Mississauga's enactment of a city-wide zoning by-law amendment.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement that resolved all outstanding issues, including definitions for void areas and gross floor area, and setback regulations for townhouses.

The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted expert planning evidence that the settlement modifications are minor, consistent with provincial policies, conform to applicable official plans, and represent good planning.

The appeal was allowed in part to implement the settlement.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an order directing the City of Mississauga to provide further disclosure of background data related to the Development Charges By-law No. 0133-2022.

The Tribunal found that the appellant demonstrated relevance and necessity for the requested information to ensure the best evidence is presented at the scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal ordered the City to use its best efforts to respond to the outstanding requests and amended the issues list as agreed by the parties.

The appellant, Dunpar Developments Inc., brought a motion to divide the merit hearing of its appeal against the City of Toronto's Development Charge By-Law into two phases.

The appellant argued that threshold issues regarding the City's intention to fund growth-related needs and the eligibility of third-party costs under the Development Charges Act must be adjudicated first to establish a methodology for reviewing specific project calculations.

The City opposed the motion, arguing for a single hearing event.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured a phased hearing to narrow the issues and provide necessary guidance on statutory interpretation before adjudicating the quantum of the charges.

The plaintiff, 1672736 Ontario Inc. (Dunpar Homes), sued the defendants, Ezio Savini (Chief Building Official) and the City of Mississauga, for over $10 million in damages, alleging misfeasance in public office and negligence due to significant delays in building permit applications and unlawful stop work orders for its Streetsville Centre housing project.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's pleadings sufficiently disclosed reasonable causes of action for both misfeasance in public office and negligence.

The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $15,000 in costs for the motion.

The Tribunal convened a second Case Management Conference regarding appeals against the City of Mississauga's Community Benefits Charge By-law.

The Tribunal confirmed that a previous consolidation order only applied to the jurisdictional question of varying the 4% charge prescribed by regulation, and that any decision on that motion would be without prejudice to the other appellants' issues.

The Tribunal ordered that further proceedings be suspended until the decision on the consolidated motion is final and binding.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Tribunal deem the pre-conditions to its Interim Order satisfied, allowing its appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to proceed.

The City opposed, arguing that conditions relating to functional servicing and municipal infrastructure upgrades were not met due to concerns over the F-5-5 Guideline and combined sewer capacity.

The Tribunal found that the F-5-5 Guideline did not apply to the subject site and accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the existing municipal infrastructure had sufficient capacity to accommodate the development.

The motion was granted, and the pre-conditions were deemed satisfied.

At a Case Management Conference, the Ontario Land Tribunal considered appeals regarding the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a proposed development.

The Tribunal ordered the consolidation of the two appeals, noting they involve the same property, development proposal, and parties.

Kingsway Park Ratepayers Inc. was granted party status without objection.

A further Case Management Conference was scheduled for October 2023 to allow the City Council to review a revised proposal.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc. against the City of Mississauga's enactment of Zoning By-law 0008-2023.

The Tribunal granted party status to Fountain Hill Construction and Consulting Ltd., limiting its involvement to sheltering under the issues raised by the appellant.

The Tribunal directed that no further requests for party status would be allowed in future proceedings.

A five-day video hearing was scheduled to commence on January 8, 2024.

This was the second Case Management Conference regarding appeals for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 15-storey residential development.

Dundas Developments Limited requested party status, which the Tribunal denied due to the late request and changing positions.

The applicant requested a follow-up Case Management Conference in two months to present a partial settlement, but the Tribunal denied this request because the applicant had not engaged with the City or the Conservation Authority regarding the proposed settlement.

At a case management conference regarding appeals of the City of Toronto's city-wide Development Charges By-law, the Tribunal scheduled a separate settlement hearing for Tenblock Developments Inc.'s appeal concerning the Toronto Green Standard.

For the remaining appeal by Dunpar Developments Inc., the Tribunal directed Dunpar to bring a motion for determination on threshold issues regarding the by-law's compliance with section 5 of the Development Charges Act, and set a schedule for the motion.

The applicant purchaser sought declarations that the respondent vendor was not entitled to a 'Bonus Density' payment under their Agreement of Purchase and Sale, and an order discharging a $25 million security mortgage.

The dispute arose after a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO) approved an aggregate density for a combined transit-oriented development that included the subject property and adjacent third-party lands.

The court held that the MZO did not trigger the Bonus Density payment because it did not allocate density specifically to the subject property, making the determination premature.

The court also dismissed the applicant's request to discharge the security mortgage and the respondent's motion to convert the application into an action.

At a Case Management Conference for an appeal of a City of Mississauga Development Charges By-law, the parties disputed the wording of the Issues List.

The Tribunal directed that the terms 'fair and reasonable' be retained but placed after references to the Development Charges Act.

The Tribunal also directed that references to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan be removed from an issue regarding official plan conformity, while retaining the questions on conformity with the local and regional official plans.

A 14-day hearing was scheduled.

The City of Mississauga brought a motion to dismiss Dunpar Homes' appeal of the City's Parkland Conveyance By-law without a hearing, arguing the notice of appeal failed to set out sufficient objections and reasons as required by s. 42(4.9) of the Planning Act.

Dunpar argued that an earlier draft of its appeal letter was inadvertently filed electronically, but that it still contained sufficient planning grounds, and that a correct hard copy was also served.

The Tribunal dismissed the City's motion, finding that the electronic notice of appeal provided a sufficient 'originating core' of planning grounds, specifically that the by-law failed to conform with provincial and municipal policies, and that the appeal should not be dismissed on an overly technical basis.

The applicant requested a Telephone Conference Call due to the City's failure to sign off on post-approval conditions for previously successful official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals.

The applicant sought to consolidate a new site plan appeal with the current matter.

The Tribunal declined to consolidate the site plan appeal as it was not properly before it, and directed that the impasse regarding the post-approval conditions be resolved via a formal motion supported by expert affidavits.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals by the applicant for the City of Toronto's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for a 15-storey residential development.

The Tribunal granted party status to Delmanor Prince Edward Inc. and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in the Official Plan appeal, consolidated the two appeals, and scheduled a 14-day merit hearing for February 2024.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding five appeals of the City of Toronto's Development Charge By-law 1137-2022.

The parties advised they were in ongoing discussions and expected to finalize a Procedural Order and Issues List by late June.

The Tribunal scheduled a further video Case Management Conference for June 26, 2023, and directed the parties to submit a draft Procedural Order, an estimated hearing length, and availability dates by June 19, 2023.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding an appeal by Sheridan Retail Inc. against the City of Mississauga's Development Charges By-law 0133-2022.

The appellant requested that this appeal be consolidated or heard together with a separate Community Benefits Charge appeal due to overlapping facts and issues.

The City opposed consolidation.

The Tribunal directed that a second CMC be scheduled and set filing dates for a potential motion to consolidate the appeals.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference for appeals by Dunpar Homes regarding the City of Toronto's cash-in-lieu of parkland levy and development charge calculation for an industrial development.

The parties requested that the cases be separated, as the parkland appeal may proceed to the courts on a jurisdictional issue, while the development charge appeal is nearing settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the cases to proceed separately and directed the parties to provide written updates by August 1, 2023.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference for two appeals by the appellant regarding a cash-in-lieu of parkland levy and a development charge calculation by the City of Toronto.

The parties requested that the cases be separated, as the parkland appeal may proceed to the courts on a jurisdictional issue, while the development charge appeal is nearing settlement.

The Tribunal ordered the appeals to proceed as separate cases and directed the parties to provide a written update by August 1, 2023.