Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 18, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210028
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: The Corporation of the City of Pickering
Appellant: Pickering Properties
Subject: By-law No. Z2/19
Municipality: Town of Ajax
LPAT Case No.: PL210028
LPAT File No.: PL210028
LPAT Case Name: The Corporation of the City of Pickering v. Ajax (Town)
Heard: June 11, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of Pickering (the “City”)
Quinto Annibale
Mark Joblin
Pickering Developments Inc.
Ira Kagan
Annandale Park Development Limited
Tara Piurko
(Previous owner and Applicant) and
Karly Descoteaux
CPSP Annandale Nominee Inc. and
CPSP Annandale Limited Partnership
(Current owner and seeking Party
Status and to assume on behalf of
Applicant)
Town of Ajax (the “Town”)
Bruce Engell
Regional Municipality of Durham
Kevin Ryan
(the “Region”)
Robert Woon
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. RUSSO ON JUNE 11, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The Appeal before the Tribunal is pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 (the “Act”).
2The Tribunal received two written requests for Party status. One on behalf of the Region and another by Crestpoint Acquisition Corporation acting on behalf of associated corporations CPSP Annandale Nominee Inc. and CPSP Annandale Limited Partnership, whom had entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the Applicant and are now the legal new owners, and as such are seeking to assume the role of the Applicant and are requesting Party status.
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
3Annandale Park Developments Limited (the “Applicant”) had applied to the Town to rezone their property located at 221 Church Street South (the “Subject Lands”). The application sought to rezone a portion of the property located on the east side of Church Street South from Golf Facility Zone (GF) to Prestige Employment Zone (PE), and a portion of the property from Golf Facility Zone (GF) to Environmental Protection Zone (EP).
4The purpose of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (the “ZBLA”) application was to bring the Subject Lands into conformity with the Town Official Plan (“OP”) designation and facilitate the development of the lands. Council for the Town approved the application and passed By-law No. 52-2020 on the 7th day of December 2020, under s. 34 of the Act.
5Subsequently, the City and Pickering Developments Inc. both appealed the decision of Council to the Tribunal.
THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (the “CMC”)
6The Tribunal held this first CMC in accordance with s. 15 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4. The Tribunal noted the Town had provided the Affidavit of Service electronically dated April 29, 2021 to all names and addresses on the mailing list provided. The Tribunal marked the Affidavit of Service as Exhibit 1.
7The Town being the Approval authority and the appeals brought forward by the City and Pickering Developments Inc. (both Appellants) had three Parties already established for the proceedings. The Region being the upper-tier municipality where the Subject Lands are located had provided a Party request form to the Tribunal. In their request for Party status, they had cited that, having provided comments on the application to Council, and the Subject Lands fronting on two regional roads as well as being subject to the Regional OP, the Region felt it could assist the Tribunal in providing planning opinions regarding conformity to the Region’s OP and felt the Region met the criteria of being provided status by the Tribunal and had an interest in ensuring regional comments are addressed at the hearing if heard. Hearing no objections by counsel and being satisfied the Region met the criteria required to be provided status, Party status was provided to the Region by the Tribunal for these proceedings.
8Ms. Piurko, counsel for the Applicant addressed the Tribunal and provided her submissions that her client had entered into and closed on an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the Subject Lands. The new owners CPSP Annandale Nominee Inc. and CPSP Annandale Limited Partnership (the “New Applicant”) also being Ms. Piurko’s clients, wished to assume the role of Applicant for these proceedings, and as such felt that they also met the criteria for the Tribunal to provide Party status, on the basis that their lands and the application being appealed had a direct impact on them. Hearing no objections by counsel and being satisfied that the New Applicant met the criteria required to be provided status, Party status was provided to them by the Tribunal for these proceedings.
ISSUES LIST, DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND HEARING
9A Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) was provided to the Tribunal in advance of the CMC with dates to be inserted and other details to be provided pending a Hearing date being set, which would make the dates and timeframes to be inserted definitive.
10All Parties were agreeable to the DPO provided in principle and with Issues List provided as Attachment 2. Counsel indicated that through ongoing discussions and anticipated witnesses to be called, the Parties believed that a 10-Day Hearing would be required to hear the merits.
11The Tribunal canvassed the room if discussions had occurred amongst Parties to further narrow the Issues List or if any other issues may now be provided with Parties now being finalized? Additionally, the Tribunal posed the question to the counsel present, if mediation had been explored or settlement discussions had occurred?
12Counsel responded that continual dialogue and ongoing discussions had occurred and will likely continue. The Parties were willing to provide a final revised DPO but as indicated, required a hearing date set to do so. As for mediation or settlement discussions, counsel were in agreement that at this time, mediation was not likely, although it has not been entirely ruled out and ongoing discussions may ignite some renewed interest. The Tribunal reminded the Parties of Tribunal-led mediation and further reminded counsel to share any progress and changes, if and when they may occur.
CONCLUSION
13Having considered the discussion during the CMC regarding the issues, potential mediation and finalizing the DPO, the Tribunal determined that it would be reasonable to schedule the hearing for 10 days.
ORDER
14The Tribunal orders a hearing by video scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, April 25, 2022 for 10 days, as follows:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/448438837
Access Code: 448-438-837
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.
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 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is 448-438-837.
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 CMC hearing by video 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.
19The Parties shall provide at least 10 days’ notice to the Tribunal prior to the hearing date in the event if fewer hearing dates are agreed upon by the Parties or if settlement has been entered into by the Parties.
20Two weeks from issuance of this decision, the Parties shall provide, on or before that date, a joint DPO and Issues List to the assigned Case Coordinator for final review and approval of the Member, highlighting any items that may require the Tribunal’s assistance to finalize.
21Post the Meeting of the Experts, the Member may be spoken to, if required, through correspondence received through the Case Coordinator.
22The Member is not seized for the purposes of the hearing of the appeal.
23No further notice of the hearing is required.
“M. Russo”
M. RUSSO
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.