Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
November 10, 2021
CASE NO(S).:
PL210292
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Amber Peak Developments Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 2021-62
Municipality:
City of Kingston
OLT Case No.:
PL210292
OLT File No.:
PL210292
OLT Case Name:
Amber Peak Developments Inc. v. Kingston (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Amber Peak Developments Inc.
Subject:
By-law No. 2021-63
Municipality:
City of Kingston
OLT Case No.:
PL210292
OLT File No.:
PL210298
Heard:
October 12, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Amber Peak Developments Inc.
M. Polowin
C. Campos
City of Kingston
A. Reeson
J. Morley
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened for appeals by Amber Peak Developments Inc. (“Appellant”) to Official Plan Amendment No. 74 (“OPA”) and to seven Zoning By-law Amendments, Nos. 2021-63 through 2021-69 (collectively, the “ZBA”), adopted by the City of Kingston (“City”) pertaining to additional residential units (“ARU”) and related matters.
2This Decision addresses preliminary CMC matters, including a motion brought by the City and resulting in certain appeals being dismissed.
3The City’s Affidavit of Service for Notice of this CMC was marked as Exhibit 1.
4The statutory Parties to this appeal were present and the Tribunal received no written requests from other persons for Party or Participant status.
5In its appeal, the Appellant asserts that the OPA and ZBA are ultra vires the City’s legislative authority pursuant to s. 16(3) of the Planning Act (“Act”), are not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), and fail to conform with the City Official Plan (“OP”).
6The City, in contrast, views the OPA and ZBA as relatively minor housekeeping amendments related to “second residential units,” being the terminology in use when the policies and provisions were first adopted by the City in 2013.
7The preliminary matter to address at this CMC was the City’s Motion seeking the dismissal of the appeals that pertain to ARU. The City acknowledges and the Appellant agrees that the appeals related to the regulations for number of bedrooms and number of kitchens (the latter not being of concern to the Appellant) are eligible for hearing, which will require a further CMC following the Tribunal’s Decision on the Motion. Such procedural matters as mediation, Issues List and a Procedural Order may be pursued at the next CMC scheduled as set out below.
8As another preliminary matter, the Appellant expressed its concern that ARU will be unduly restricted during the appeal process, given that a ZBA or parts thereof, if ultimately approved, is retroactive to its date of passing under the Act. As a result, even if a ZBA were not approved, it imposes a restriction on ARU until the appeals are decided. The Appellant seeks relief from such restriction. The City questioned the authority for the Tribunal to make such ruling. On preliminary consideration only, the Tribunal too questions the jurisdictional authority to provide relief from such provisions of the Act. On consent of the Parties, the Tribunal directed the Appellant to pursue the question by written motion should it wish to be heard.
9The next CMC is scheduled below. No further notice will be given. Based on the Decision herein on the City’s Motion, the Parties are directed to prepare a draft Procedural Order with Issues List for consideration at the next CMC.
10The next CMC is scheduled for Wednesday, March 16, 2022 commencing at 10 a.m. by video hearing.
11Parties 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/162198797
Access Code: 162-198-797
12Parties 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.
13Persons 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 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.
14Individuals 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.
MOTION
15The City contends that the ARU appeals are barred by statute and should be dismissed without a hearing. The Appellant responds that the OPA and ZBA are ultra vires which constitutes a triable issue warranting a full hearing.
Planning Act, Policies and Legal Principles
16At the centre of this Motion are the following sections of the Act (emphasis added).
Additional residential unit policies
16(3) An official plan shall contain policies that authorize the use of additional residential units by authorizing,
(a) the use of two residential units in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse; and
(b) the use of a residential unit in a building or structure ancillary to a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse.
No appeal re additional residential unit policies
17(24.1) Despite subsection (24), there is no appeal in respect of the policies described in subsection 16(3), including, for greater certainty, any requirements or standards that are part of such policies.
No appeal re additional residential unit policies
34(19.1) Despite subsection (19), there is no appeal in respect of the parts of a by-law that give effect to policies described in subsection 16(3), including, for greater certainty, no appeal in respect of any requirement or standard relating to such policies.
17Related to the foregoing requirements in the Act, are the following sections of the PPS with which a decision of the Tribunal must be consistent as required by s. 3(5) of the Act (emphasis added).
1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by:
b) accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types (including single-detached, additional residential units, multi-unit housing, affordable housing and housing for older persons),
1.1.3.3 Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs.
1.4.3 Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by:
b) permitting and facilitating:
all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements and needs arising from demographic changes and employment opportunities; and
all types of residential intensification, including additional residential units, and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3;
c) directing the development of new housing towards locations where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public service facilities are or will be available to support current and projected needs;
d) promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and support the use of active transportation and transit in areas where it exists or is to be developed;
e) requiring transit-supportive development and prioritizing intensification, including potential air rights development, in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations; and
f) establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.
18The Parties refer to related case law in support of their positions, including the following cases summarized below.
19In Toronto (City) v. 2059946 Ontario Ltd. [2007] O.J. No. 3021, the Divisional Court, on an application for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”), addresses the matters of a question of law and the Tribunal’s independence at para. 3:
Leave to appeal should be granted if the City can demonstrate that the Board's decision raises a question of law that is of sufficient importance to warrant the attention of the Divisional Court and that there is some reason to doubt the correctness of the decision. Doubt as to correctness must be based on the totality of the decision and the Board's order and when considering leave to appeal, some measure of deference commensurate with the degree of independence and expertise of the Board is required: Concerned Citizens of King (Township) v. King (Township) [2000] O.J. No. 3517 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 9-10.
20In Toronto (City) v. Goldlist Properties Inc. et al, 2003 CanLII 50084 (ON CA), 67 O.R. (3d) 441, the Court of Appeal finds, at para. 17, that s. 17(45) of the Act allows the Tribunal to dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if it finds no planning grounds upon which the appeal could be approved or refused:
… It was open to the Board to hold a hearing on this issue first, as part of the appeal, before considering other issues raised. … Its decision on this question made it unnecessary for it to go forward with hearing the balance of the appeal. …
21In International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 v. Consolidated-Bathurst Packaging Ltd. 1990 CanLII 132 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282 (“IWA”), the Supreme Court of Canada on a labour relations matter, at para. 74, underscores the preference of coherence in administrative decision-making while also acknowledging the necessity of an administrative panel member to arrive at an independent decision based on the circumstances of the case:
… It is obvious that coherence in administrative decision making must be fostered. … At the same time, the decision of one panel cannot bind another panel and … must not compromise any panel member’s capacity to decide in accordance with his[/her] conscience and opinions.
22While not precedent-setting, the OMB case of Concept Young Inc. v. Kingston (City), [2016] O.M.B.D. No. 569 dealt with a motion similar to the current case. There, the OMB found that servicing constraints represent “requirements or standard(s)” under s. 34(19.1) of the Act which are protected from appeal. Member S. Sutherland found at para. 28 that:
The legislation leaves it to municipalities to determine appropriate locations and standards for second units within its planning policies.
23In Niagara River Coalition v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town), 2010 ONCA 173, [2010] O.J. No. 937, at para. 44, Bouck J. is quoted from Capital Regional District v. Saanich (District) (1980), 1980 CanLII 712 (BC SC), [1981] 24 B.C.L.R. 154 (S.C.):
… The (municipality) must set out in its official … plan what it is trying to do. When it fails in its purpose, others cannot fill in the gaps because they are then placing themselves in the position of the (municipality) which alone is responsible for the decision.
24In Maitre v. Malden (Township), 1992 CarswellOnt 4572 (OMB), Member Johnson, at para. 14, notes two prior decisions of the OMB when finding that:
… a motion to dismiss an appeal of a landowner without a full hearing must be considered with great care. … Hence, as stated in the Limerick decision [Township of Limerick Zoning By-law Z-3-88 (1988), 22 O.M.B.R. 500], “the board may dismiss appeals without a hearing only if no triable issue … is raised by the appellants.” It follows that the onus of establishing that no triable issue has been raised rests with the maker of the motion …
25Further guidance is given by Member Perlin in Whiteley v. Guelph (City) 1999 CarswellOnt 4855 (OMB) in para. 14:
Further, the Board, in coming to its decision on whether to dismiss without holding a full hearing, must be careful not to determine the triable issues themselves nor should the Board determine whether the appellant is likely to be successful. The determination of the issues and the success of the appellant with respect to those issues should be left to the hearing.
Submissions
26With reference to the written and oral submissions, the Tribunal understands the Parties’ positions as summarized below. The Tribunal acknowledges that these amendments under appeal refer to “secondary residential units” rather than ARU because the City’s current policy was based on an earlier version of the Act. For the purpose of this Motion Decision, ARU is the term utilized in accordance with the current Act, but may be interpreted as also referring to “secondary residential units”.
City
27The City submits as follows.
28Dating back to 2013, the City has made various amendments to its OP and Zoning By-laws (“ZBL”) to authorize the use of ARU as required by the Act and to regulate same through various requirements. At present, the City permits ARU in a detached house, semi-detached house or rowhouse, or in an accessory building, all subject to various requirements.
29The City has commenced further work, not contained in the current OPA and ZBA, to address the Act’s 2019 amendment requiring “additional” residential units as opposed to the previous requirement for “secondary” residential units. The OPA and ZBA currently before the Tribunal are intended to address issues that have arisen under the City’s existing framework, while more substantial amendments are being drafted in response to the newer ARU requirements in the Act. The City’s existing policies remain in effect and warrant housekeeping attention where such does not offend the current Act.
30The OPA essentially consists of two amendments only, being: 1, to remove one sewer constraint area and add another; and 2, to update references to the City’s sewer and water authorities.
31The ZBA refine the existing requirements for ARU primarily by requiring an unobstructed pathway, allowing ARU in legal non-complying dwellings, defining an existing dwelling as the principal dwelling for interpreting ARU provisions, amending the height requirements for detached ARU, removing certain entrance requirements for ARU, and updating the servicing constraint areas by removing one and adding another.
32The OPA and ZBA under appeal constitute amendments to the City’s existing policy and regulatory framework for ARU. As a matter of statutory interpretation, a plain reading of the Act, in harmony with its intent, should result in a finding that relevant requirements and standards related to ARU are barred from appeal and should not be heard.
33One of the purposes of the Act is s. 1.1(f) “to recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning.” While directing municipalities to allow ARU, the Act balances such direction with the ability to establish requirements and standards suitable to the local context. The municipality’s discretion has limits because the Minister retains the right of appeal under the Act. The Minister has not appealed the OPA and ZBA here. The City has the Act’s permission to establish appropriate standards for ARU while maintaining compliance with the direction of s. 16(3) to allow them.
34On the Tribunal’s ability to assess its own jurisdiction, an efficient process in keeping with the Act calls for disallowing the time, effort and cost of a hearing on matters not permitted to be heard. The specific provisions of the Act and the reviewed case law allow the Tribunal to dismiss these appeals.
35None of the amendments amount to a complete prohibition of ARU. The amendments represent appropriate standards, which, when satisfied, permit ARU and are therefore not ultra vires s. 16(3) of the Act. As an example, within the new servicing constraint area, proponents may seek a zoning amendment if supported by demonstrating that sufficient services are available to accommodate the ARU.
36The City asks that all of the appeals listed in the Motion be dismissed on the basis of being barred by s. 17(24.1) and s. 34(19.1) of the Act.
Appellant
37The Appellant responds as follows.
38Sections 17(24.1) and 34(19.1) of the Act do not apply to this appeal because the appeal focusses on whether the OPA and ZBA have authority under s. 16(3) of the Act. That section mandates the City to permit ARU. However, the OPA and ZBA prohibit ARU by imposing requirements that prevent their establishment, such as servicing, yard location or building height. Other requirements, such as fencing or pathways, are matters of site plan control that should not be imposed through zoning.
39Whether the City has the statutory authority to pass such amendments is a triable issue warranting a full hearing. On that basis alone, the Motion should be dismissed. The issue of legal authority is a material issue for which full evidence should be heard. These appeals raise both legal and planning grounds which the Act and case law intend to be addressed at a full hearing.
40Where there is any lingering question as to whether an issue is triable, a full hearing should be convened. As an example, the availability of servicing is a common requirement for development, but in the proposed restricted area, only ARU are targeted to demonstrate servicing capacity; other dwelling types are not. Whether such restriction is contrary to s. 16(3) of the Act should be assessed in full at a hearing.
41Moreover, the ZBAs address matters that are not supported by corresponding policies in the OP. Such policies are required by s. 16(3) of the Act to invoke the prevention of appeal under s. 34(19.1). Since the OP is silent on many of the ZBA requirements, they are not protected from appeal.
42Applying the legal principle of implied exclusion, the Act requires municipalities to permit ARU, period, unlike other provisions such as inclusionary zoning where such may be allowed or disallowed in certain areas. Thus, the test of statutory compliance should be heard in full. Similar questions arise for the intended zoning requirements for legal non-complying uses, definition of principal dwelling, prohibition in front yards, fencing, and the restrictive height for detached buildings.
43The ZBA limits the height of detached buildings containing ARU to one storey, whereas the existing ZBL permits a height equal to the main dwelling. The restrictions for legal non-complying buildings are not permitted by the Act and should be determined through a full hearing.
44Although the Tribunal may determine its own jurisdiction, questions of municipal authority have been heard by the Court of Appeal and such triable issues warrant a full hearing at the Tribunal. The City has not met its burden to demonstrate the absence of triable issues, and such should be heard fully on their merits.
45The Appellant asks the Tribunal to refuse the Motion and allow these valid appeals their statutory right to a full hearing on the merits.
Findings
46For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal will dismiss all but one of the appeals addressed in the Motion. Using the words of the Appellant, the Tribunal has a “lingering question” related to the ZBA limits on the height of detached accessory buildings containing an ARU.
47The Tribunal must balance its review with careful consideration of the Act’s mandatory instruction in s. 16(3) and its prohibition of appeals in s. 17(24.1) and s. 34(19.1). In doing so, the Tribunal must also apply the relevant legal principles raised by the Parties when considering to refuse an appeal, including notions of natural justice, triable issues, and a high bar for disallowing an appeal. Further, the Tribunal must take great care not to contemplate the possible, eventual outcome of an issue, but rather whether such issue is worthy of adjudication in the context of the Act.
48On the latter issue above, the Tribunal finds that a nuanced approach is warranted here. While the eventual outcome of an issue should not be contemplated, the Act’s prohibition to certain appeals requires the Tribunal to assess whether the subject matter meets the requirements for no appeal. Such determination requires the Tribunal to delve somewhat into the context and purpose of the provision to determine whether the issue is protected from appeal. Such approach is applied in the appeal analysis later and should not be taken as a predetermination of an issue.
49To further frame the approach to making this Decision, the Tribunal must consider the notion of triable issue in light of the Act’s prohibition of certain appeals. It is not only a matter of determining the presence of a land use planning ground, but also whether the subject of such planning ground is protected from appeal by the Act. Somewhat contrary to the Appellant’s argument, the Tribunal finds it possible that an issue which presents as worthy of adjudication under s. 16(3) of the Act may be found unappealable under s. 17(24.1) or s. 34(19.1). Given the limitations on appeals, the triable issue must be considered a relatively serious affront to the Act’s mandatory ARU requirements, that is, more serious than what might be required in the absence of appeal limitations. In simple terms, both provisions of the Act apply: one that mandates municipalities to permit ARU and another that limits appeals. The Tribunal will weigh both matters when considering the elements under appeal.
50Also in overview, the Tribunal does not accept the Appellant’s argument of focussing solely on s. 16(3). That section does indeed direct that an OP shall contain policies that authorize the use of ARU. However, the Tribunal finds that such authorization is balanced with the reference in the appeal provisions to “requirements or standards” that are part of the OP policies or are contained in the ZBA relating to the OP policies. Rather than an absolute and unconditioned right to the provision of ARU, the Act requires ARU to be permitted but anticipates that the OP and/or ZBA may impose certain requirements.
51Such finding is supported by the PPS where policy 1.1.1 b) refers to “accommodating an appropriate … range and mix of residential types (including … additional residential units …).” Similar wording is found in policy 1.4.3 where sub-policy f) refers to “establishing development standards for residential intensification.” These policies speak to a municipality’s ability to consider the community context when establishing planning policy and implementation requirements in pursuit of a “healthy, liveable and safe” community (policy 1.1.1).
52Further, the Tribunal finds that not every provision in a ZBA must be authorized by a corresponding OP policy. The convention of establishing detailed ZBL requirements to implement the general policy directions of an OP is a common planning practice and supported by the respective provisions of the Act. For example, under s. 16(1) the OP shall, through policy, manage and direct physical change, while under s. 34(1)4 and s. 34(3) the ZBL may regulate the location, size and character of buildings, including height and density, provided such provisions conform with the goals and policies of the OP per s. 24(1) of the Act.
53Using the track and field “high jump” analogy, the Tribunal describes the approach here as a high bar for the City to achieve dismissal of an appeal, and a lower bar for the Appellant to achieve retention of an appeal. As noted earlier, because certain appeals are barred, the Appellant’s bar for retaining an appeal is somewhat higher than might apply if no appeal prohibition applied. The Tribunal recognizes its onus to employ a cautious approach when contemplating disallowing an appeal. For this case, a hearing is required in any event for issues under appeal that are not addressed by this Motion. The Tribunal would prefer to err on the side of caution and send a matter to the hearing, rather than risk a potential error in law by disallowing an appeal. Should a matter proceed to hearing, the Parties may continue to argue its statutory legitimacy at the hearing on the merits.
54In light of the above framework, for the purpose of assessing triable issues, the Tribunal will review the matters under appeal for their relevance and potential to prevent the City from meeting its obligation to permit ARU. Where a reasonable question remains as to whether a policy or provision might intrude unduly on the requirement of s. 16(3), the Tribunal will weigh on the side of allowing the appeal to proceed. Only its potential to affect compliance with the Act will be considered, leaving the merits of the appeal to the full hearing where allowed.
55The OPA appeal relates only to the newly designated area near Fairview Road now subject to sewer capacity constraints. The ZBA appeal also relates to this newly affected area. The Appellant does not oppose the removal of a previously designated constraint area, nor the updates to agency names associated with sewer and water authority.
56In keeping with the Act, the constraint area is not seen as a permanent prohibition to ARU in the designated area, and thus presents as a reasonable requirement associated with permitting ARU in the City. The existing policies of the OP, which are not before the Tribunal under this appeal, enable the release of a constraint area subject to various requirements. The City’s planning report indicates that the sewer capacity constraint area was recently identified by Utilities Kingston. The City’s release of the constraint area along Highway 15 demonstrates its intention to limit ARU only where necessary, where that area is no longer constrained by servicing limitations.
57The newly identified constraint area represents a small part of the City where ARU would be permitted only after sufficiently resolving the sewer capacity constraints in that area. To the Appellant’s argument that such constraint does not apply to other housing types within the same area, the Tribunal finds that such issue relates to other sections of the OP that are not before the Tribunal here. With respect to ARU only, the constraint area is considered reasonable and appropriate. The Tribunal finds that the sewer capacity constraint area policies and schedules in the OPA and related provisions and schedules in the ZBA constitute “requirements or standards” that are protected from appeal under the Act.
58The Tribunal makes a similar finding for the appeal to the ZBA provisions addressing unobstructed pathways, legal non-complying buildings, principal dwelling unit, yards in which ARU are permitted, fencing, and driveways. These provisions are technical “requirements or standards” related to the mandatory provision of ARU. Pathways, yards, fencing and driveways are relatively minor site requirements that do not amount to the triable issue of offending the Act’s requirement to permit ARU. The provision for legal non-complying buildings is permissive, allowing for ARU in such buildings where such complies with the ZBL and does not increase the legal non-compliance of the existing building. The new provision defining a principal dwelling is considered a technical matter to clarify the interpretation and application of the ZBL related to ARU. Of importance for the Tribunal here is the knowledge that if any of these provisions prevents an ARU on a specific property, opportunities exist under the Act for a minor variance or zoning amendment to address the peculiarities of a specific property or proposal.
59The ZBA restricts the height of a detached ARU to one storey and an associated maximum height above grade. From submissions, the Tribunal understands that existing zoning provisions allow for an ARU above an existing detached garage. Here the Appellant’s submissions ring louder for the Tribunal as raising a potentially triable issue: do these provisions prohibit a use anticipated to be permitted by s. 16(3)(b) of the Act? To illustrate, under the Act’s mandatory instruction, the Appellant questions why a residential property, containing a permitted two-storey house, is prohibited from establishing an ARU as a second storey to an accessory detached garage.
60Whereas the Tribunal finds the other appealed matters to be regulatory in nature and thus protected from appeal, it finds this issue to begin approaching the triable issue of prohibition. Out of an abundance of caution, the Tribunal will allow this issue to remain under appeal for full examination at a merits hearing. To avoid overlooking provisions that may be directly interconnected with the height issue of accessory buildings, the Tribunal will leave some room for the Parties to agree on their inclusion in the eventual Issues List.
61As agreed by the Appellants, the City may continue to argue the ineligibility of the appeal at the hearing. Following the merits hearing, the presiding Tribunal Member will be in a position to render a Decision on this issue with the full benefit of complete facts, expert opinions and legal submissions.
ORDER
62The Tribunal Orders that the City of Kingston Motion is allowed in part, and the appeals by Amber Peak Developments Inc. to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are barred by s. 17(24.1) and s. 34(19.1) of the Planning Act and are therefore dismissed, except for the following matters which may proceed to a hearing on the merits:
Appeals related to number of bedrooms (as consented by the Parties and not part of the Motion);
Appeals related to the height of accessory buildings, and provisions directly interconnected therewith.
63The Tribunal’s directions set out in the Introduction of this Decision are so ordered.
64This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator for case management purposes.
“S. Tousaw”
S. TOUSAW
Member
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.