Angus Glen Landowners’ Group Inc. v. Markham (City), 2021 CanLII 105807

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 22, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL210288

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Angus Glen Landowners’ Group Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Markham to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: “Future Neighbourhood Area” and “Greenway”

Proposed Designation: To establish the Angus Glen Secondary Plan

Purpose: To establish the Angus Glen Secondary Plan for the purpose of guiding the development of a proposed master-planned community to consist of 6,000 housing units with a population of 18,900 and to also provide policy direction with respect to matters related to the Greenway System, including direction with respect to road linkages and the location of parks and stormwater management facilities

Property Address/Description: 411 hectares (1,015.6 acres) of land bounded by Major Mackenzie Drive to the south, Elgin Mills Road to the north, Warden Avenue to the west and Kennedy Road to the east

Municipality: City of Markham

Approval Authority File No.: OP-17-130159

OLT Case No.: PL210288

OLT File No.: PL210288

OLT Case Name: Angus Glen Landowners’ Group Inc. v. Markham (City)

Heard: October 6, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

City of Markham

Francesco Santaguida

Victoria Chai

Angus Glen Landowners Group Inc.

Ira T. Kagan

Kristie Jennings

Regional Municipality of York

Bola Ogunmefun

Mercedes Mueller

York Region District School Board

Buck Sully

York Catholic District School Board

Conseil scolaire Viamonde

Aaron Platt

Amylee Hu-Fouye (student-at-law)

Toronto Region Conservation Authority

Barbara Montgomery

Romandale Farms Limited

Meaghan McDermid

Rodney Northey

DECISION DELIVERED BY G.C.P. BISHOP AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for an appeal by the Angus Glen Landowners Group Inc. (“Angus Glen”) under s. 22(7) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the failure of the City of Markham (the “City”) to make a decision within the statutory time frame with respect to an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) for the purpose of establishing the Angus Glen Secondary Plan.

2The lands subject to the proposed Angus Glen Secondary Plan are bounded by Major Mackenzie Drive to the south, Elgin Mills Road to the north, Warden Avenue to the west and Kennedy Road to the east. The subject lands are 411 hectares (1,015.6 acres). Current uses include the Angus Glen Golf Club, the Angus Glen Community Centre, agricultural, greenway and rural residential uses.

3The Affidavit of Service was marked as Exhibit 1.

4There were a number of requests for party status and all, with the exception of one party, status was granted. The added parties are as follows:

1. Regional Municipality of York
2. York Region District School Board
3. York Catholic District School Board
4. Conseil scolaire Viamonde
5. Toronto Region Conservation Authority
6. Romandale Farms Limited

5The final request came from Yat-Sing Chan (“Mandy Chan”), who owns lands at 4276 Elgin Mills Road East, which is located on the north side of the road and opposite to the lands considered for development through this OPA. The Tribunal determined that the proposed issues relate to setbacks in relation to physical features on her property and not to the overall conceptual design of the proposed OPA. Mandy Chan was granted participant status, which will allow her to voice any concerns, in writing, for consideration by the City, Angus Glen and other parties that have been added to this file.

6Although the proper protocol was not followed, with respect to the submission of a participant request form prior to this event, the Tribunal did solicit and allow a number of persons to be granted participant status. The individuals that were granted participant status are as follows:

1. Mandy Chan
2. Paul Filice
3. Aris and Kira Diamandis
4. Adam Keung and Cecilia Ling
5. Ching Kwan Chau (“Mabel Chau”) and Shirley Chau

7Mr. Kagan, co-counsel for Angus Glen, submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) in advance of this event. On anticipation that all the parties requesting party status would be granted such, the PO included the Issues List from these parties with the exception of the City and Romandale Farms Limited (“Romandale”).

8Although the issues list for all three school boards were captured under one section in the Issues List, it appears that the concerns of the French-speaking School Board (Conseil scolaire Viamonde) may not have been addressed.

9The Tribunal gleaned, from further dialog between Messrs. Kagan and Platt that the Issues List for school locations may have been on the basis of an older version of the documents and not on the most recent version that was just circulated in early September of this year. This most recent circulation of the updated documents is also one of the stated reasons why Angus Glen did not supply an issues list to parties and the Tribunal. Mr. Santaguida, counsel for the City, stated that direction has been given and the City is now in the position to supply their list of issues.

10The second reason for not supplying an issues list, given by Mr. Northey on behalf of Romandale, is that the court proceeding that has taken place, and presumably to be continued, will have a direct affect on not only the timing of this matter but also the issues list. It is Mr. Northey’s position that it is premature to schedule a hearing on the merits prior to the outcome of the court proceedings.

11The court proceeding involved in application for judicial review against the City’s actions in relation to this OPA. This application was heard by the Divisional Court on March 31, 2021 and a decision was rendered on June 11, 2021 dismissing the appeal on the basis of prematurity. Mr. Northey indicated his firm is co-counsel in an application for leave to appeal the Divisional Court decision but gave no indication to the Tribunal where this application stands at the present time.

12Mr. Northey requested of the Tribunal to set a date for a motion on this matter and asked the Tribunal to solicit input from other parties as to their degree of interest in a motion. Mr. Santaguida was opposed to the scheduling of a motion stating the outcome of the decision from the Divisional Court and that there is nothing in the decision indicating any stay to this proceeding of the Tribunal. It is Mr. Kagan’s position that the concerns of Romandale are planning issues that will be ultimately decided by this Tribunal and that a hearing on the merits could be scheduled at this event.

13The Tribunal is not convinced that any outcome from the leave to appeal will have any substantive changes to an issues list. There was no consensus on the proposed motion on which the Tribunal should act and advised counsel for Romandale to submit a request to the Tribunal if they deemed it necessary. By delaying the scheduling of the hearing to a second CMC, the Tribunal finds this as a fair and equitable solution that will allow the City and Romandale time to submit their issues list and for other parties to review and refine their issues as well, given the timing of the latest amendments to the OPA documents.

14The Tribunal directed the parties that, on or before Monday, November 1, 2021, the parties will work toward refining and supplying the issues list, together with a draft PO, to all parties and the Tribunal. This PO and the timelines for a hearing on the merits will be discussed at a second CMC scheduled to commence on Tuesday, November 9, 2021 at 10 a.m. The parties will be prepared to discuss their preliminary list of witnesses so that the length of the hearing may be determined at this time.

15Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/868797773

Access Code: 868-797-773

16Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The Access Code is as indicated above.

18Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the video hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

19There will be no further notice.

20This Member is not seized.

21So Orders the Tribunal.

“G.C.P. Bishop”

G.C.P. BISHOP

VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.