Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 05, 2021
CASE NO(S).: DC200011
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27, as amended
Appellant: Ali Mohammad
Subject: DC By-law 012-2020
Municipality: City of Brockville
OLT Case No.: DC200011
OLT File No.: DC200011
OLT Case Name: Mohammad v. Brockville (City)
Heard: August 3, 2021 by Video Hearing ("VH")
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Ali Mohammad ("Appellant")
Did not appear
City of Brockville ("City")
J. Simpson
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR ON AUGUST 3, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This hearing date was set at the Case Management Conference ("CMC") of May 4, 2021, at which time the Appellant did appear and advised the Tribunal that he would be retaining counsel.
2At this hearing, neither the Appellant nor any counsel representing him, appeared at the hearing.
3As required by Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules"), the Tribunal recessed the matter for the appropriate time to see if any appearance would be made.
4Thereafter with no appearance by the Appellant or anyone on his behalf, the Tribunal sought submissions from counsel for the City, who advised that there had been no communication from the Appellant or anyone on his behalf in the lead up to the hearing, that the Appellant was not in attendance and that the appeal should be dismissed.
5Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for the reasons set out below.
DECISION
6The Tribunal Rules provide that for an electronic hearing, the Tribunal will not, in the event a party or a party's representative has not yet appeared, commence the hearing for a period of 15 minutes after its scheduled commencement.
7With the non-appearance of the Appellant (nor anyone on his behalf) at the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal recessed the matter for 20 minutes, and then restarted the hearing, at which time there was no appearance by the Appellant or anyone on his behalf.
8The Tribunal requested submissions from counsel for the City who asked that the appeal be dismissed for non-attendance.
9In the absence of the Appellant, and in the absence of any communication of delay, or illness, or accident, etc., the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
10Counsel then indicated that while he was loath to request costs against a self-represented party, this matter had been the subject of the CMC at which time the Appellant had appeared personally, had indicated that he would be retaining counsel, and now had not appeared, and that pursuant to Rule 23, this was a unreasonable action by the Appellant and warranted costs in the amount of $500.
11The Tribunal indicated that it would not award costs at this time for the following reasons: it was a self-represented party, the hearing was in the midst of the Covid-19 pandemic, that it was an electronic hearing, and there might be very reasonable and valid justification for the non-appearance.
12However, the Tribunal also indicated that its above ruling on costs was on a without prejudice basis to the City making a further request for costs if it so chose.
13The appeal is dismissed.
14This is the Order of the Tribunal.
"Blair S. Taylor"
BLAIR S. TAYLOR
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.