Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

November 01, 2022

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-003941

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant:

Ian Scott

Applicant:

Riverlands of Rockland Inc.

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description:

To permit a new planned community with detached dwellings, townhouses, small apartment blocks and commercial uses

Reference Number:

LOPA-005-2021

Property Address:

Parts of Lots 18, 19, 20 and 21, Concession 1 (Old Survey), north side of County Road 17 and east of Pago Road in Clarence Point

Municipality/UT:

Clarence-Rockland/Prescott and Russell

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-003941

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-003941

OLT Case Name:

Scott v. Clarence-Rockland (City)

Heard:

October 5, 2022, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

Riverlands of Rockland Inc. (“Applicant”)

Ursula Melinz*, Crystal McConkey, co-counsel*

Ian Scott (“Appellant”)

Self-represented

United Counties of Prescott-Russell

Gregory Meeds*

DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is a Motion to Dismiss the appeal of the Appellant without a hearing pursuant to s. 17(45)(1)(i) of the Planning Act (“PA”) and s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 (“OLTA”).

2The Applicant and the Region were represented by counsel at the hearing, and the Region took a position on the Motion siding with the Motion brought by Riverlands of Rockland Inc.

DECISION

3For the reason set out below, the Tribunal will allow the Motion and hereby dismisses the appeal of the Appellant.

THE MOTION

1. An order of the Tribunal dispensing of the appeal of Ian Scott (the “Appellant”) in its entirely without a hearing; and

2. Such further relief as counsel may advise and the Tribunal may deem just.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION

4Riverlands of Rockland Inc. (the “Applicant”) is the registered owner of the lands at Pago Road and County Road 17, being PINS 69057-0378, 69057-0252, 69057-0255 and 690570256, in the City of Clarence-Rockland (the “Subject Lands”) and it is the Proponent/Applicant that requested Official Plan Amendment LOPA-005-2021 (“OPA 19”) in support of its proposed development of the Subject Lands.

5The Applicant submitted an Official Plan Amendment application, OPA 19, to change the designation of the Subject Lands in order to permit the development of a master planned community on municipal water and sewer services. OPA 19 proposes to bring the Subject Lands into the Urban Area of the City of Clarence Rockland and to designate the Subject Lands as “Medium Density Residential Special Exception” and “Business Park.” Site specific policies are also proposed to guide the future development of the Subject Lands.

6OPA 19 is a proposed amendment to the City of Clarence-Rockland’s Official Plan, being a lower-tier Official Plan. OPA 19 must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, (the “PPS”) and be in conformity with the Official Plan of the United Counties of Prescott-Russell the upper tier approval authority. To be in effect, OPA 19 must be adopted by the City of Clarence-Rockland and then approved by the United Counties of Prescott-Russell.

7The Planning Department for the City of Clarence-Rockland supported the application for OPA 19 on the basis that it is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Official Plan of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell.

8On February 23, 2022, City Council of the City of Clarence-Rockland adopted by-law No. 202212, being a by-law to adopt OPA 19.

9On March 24, 2022, the United Counties of Prescott-Russell approved OPA 19, with a minor modification.

10On April 20, 2022, Mr. Scott filed an “Appeal” to the approval and adoption of OPA 19.

11It is not possible by way of an appeal to extend the appeal deadline established by the Planning Act.

12The Appellant has not indicated an intention to bring forward land use planning evidence.

DISMISSAL WITHOUT A HEARING

13The Applicant’s Motion to Dismiss included as required by the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) a written Affidavit by Jordan Jackson, a Land Use Planner and a comprehensive Exhibit Book of Documents in support of the Motion to Dismiss.

14Counsel for the Applicant stated the Appellant appealed the adoption by Council for the City of Clarence-Rockland of Official Plan Amendment No. 19 (“OPA 19”).

15The Appellant’s Response contained an Affidavit by the Appellant himself including a number of exhibits of reports and documents.

16The written affidavit states that it is the opinion of Ms. Jackson, that the Appeal fails to satisfy the statutory requirements of the Planning Act and should therefore be dismissed without a hearing in accordance with s. 17(45) of the Planning Act, as the reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the amendment that is the subject of this appeal could be refused by the Tribunal.

17Ms. Jackson in her Affidavit states, the Appeal is not clear, but it was her submission that the Appellant has generally alleged, that:

a. He requested an extension to the 20 day statutory appeal period;

b. The public notification processes were not followed;

c. Reference to a request for the LIDAR data;

d. Concerns with forest clear cutting;

e. Concerns or questions in regard to baseline water tables and private wells;

f. Concerns or questions in regard to stormwater management; and

g. Concerned or questions in regard to Ottawa River shoreline erosion.

18Ms. Jackson’s submission states that the grounds of the Appeal are vague, uncertain, confusing, concern extraneous matters, lack a substantial base and do not raise a triable land use planning issue that warrants a full hearing. The Appellant’s comments in regard to the public process are not an applicable planning concerns on which approval of OPA 19 may be over-turned. Furthermore, a land title qualifier and historic survey information are not planning matters relevant to an approval, or refusal, of an official plan amendment. She submitted that these matters can be addressed by the Government of Ontario and/or an Ontario Land Surveyor.

19Within her written submission Ms. Jackson outlined that the Appellant has failed to identify under which section of the Planning Act that the Appeal has been brought; it does not identify whether the Appeal is to all, or part, of OPA 19; the Appeal has failed to make a submission on OPA 19’s consistency with the PPS; the Appeal has failed to make a submission on OPA 19’s conformity with the Official Plan of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell and has it failed to identify any land planning issues associated with OPA 19.

20It is Ms. Jackson’s professional recommendation that the Ontario Land Tribunal dismiss the appeal.

STATUTORY REGIME

21Section 17(45) of the PA provides the following:

Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and subsection (44), the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if any of the following apply:

1. The Tribunal is of the opinion that,

i. The reasons set out in the Notice of Appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the plan or part of the plan that is the subject of the appeal could be approved or refused by the Tribunal,

22The OLTA in s. 19(1) states:

Subject to subsection (4), the Tribunal may, on the motion of any party or on its own initiative, dismiss a proceeding without a hearing; …

(c) if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success.

LAND USE PLANNING

23The PA in s. 1 sets out as two of its purposes that land use planning in Ontario is to be policy-led, and to recognize the decision-making authority and accountability of municipal councils in planning.

24Section 2 of the PA provides a number of Provincial Interests that City Council and this Tribunal must have regard for in making any land use planning decision. Those interests include:

i. The orderly development of safe and healthy communities (h);

ii. The adequate provision of a full range of housing including affordable housing (j);

iii. The resolution of planning conflicts between public and private interests (n); and

iv. The appropriate location of growth and development (p).

25Section 2.1 of the PA requires that when the Tribunal makes a decision on a land use planning matter, it shall have regard to both the decision made by City Council and the information and material that City Council considered in making its decision.

26Finally, from s. 3(5) of the PA, the Tribunal (and the City Council before it) is mandated when making a land use planning decision that such a decision shall be consistent with the PPS and shall conform to provincial plans that are in effect.

JURISPRUDENCE

27The leading case with regard to a Motion to Dismiss is East Beach Community Assn. v Toronto (City), [1996] CarswellOnt 5470 O.M.B.D. No. 1890 (“East Beach”). There the Ontario Municipal Board (the Tribunal predecessor) provided this guidance:

…The Board is entitled to examine the reasons stated to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons. This is not to say that the Board should take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily, and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case. This does not allow the Board to make a hasty conclusion as to the merit of an issue. Nor does it mean that every appellant should draft the appeal with punctilious care and arm itself with iron-clad reason for fear of being struck down. What these particular provisions allow the Board to do is seek out whether there is authenticity in the reasons stated, whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process.

28And later with regard to a specific issue, the decision carries on saying:

…With respect to the questions of traffic impact or parking sufficiency, it is our finding that it is not good enough to simply raise apprehension. It would not constitute apparent planning ground by saying that further study is required in the hope that once a hearing is convened, more real issues can come forth. Such an approach will never lead to any finality, no matter how careful and sound an opinion is founded.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

29The Tribunal was provided evidence to indicate that the Appellant’s appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the plan or part of the plan that is the subject of the appeal could be approved or refused by the Tribunal s. 17(45)(1)(i)).

30The Tribunal heard the viva voce evidence of the Appellant who sought to take the Tribunal through the entirety of his Response. After a number of directions to the Appellant to present the essence of his evidence and not simply refer to each of the exhibits, he referred to in his Response to the Motion.

31The Tribunal finds in this case, that the Appellant failed to explain or provide details as to how OPA 19 is inconsistent with the PPS, nor does the appeal explain or provide details as to how OPA 19 is not in conformity with the Official Plan of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell.

32Upon questioning, the Appellant failed to indicate what evidence will be brought forward to demonstrate any alleged inconsistency or nonconformity. As noted by counsel, the Planning Act requires an Appellant to explain for what reason, in what way, or in what manner, and upon what facts, the appellant asserts that the instrument in question does not conform with, conflicts with, or is inconsistent with, the PPS and/or the upper-tier Official Plan.

33The Tribunal informed the Appellant that the Notice of Appeal must contain planning grounds on which the appeal is to be adjudicated. In this case, the appeal was lacking sufficient grounds to move this matter forward.

34The Tribunal informed the Appellant it is not possible by way of an appeal to extend the appeal deadline established by the Planning Act.

35The Tribunal heard from the Appellant that he has not indicated an intention to bring forward land use planning evidence.

36It is a well-established principle that, on a Motion to Dismiss an appeal, the Tribunal may look beyond the written reasons in the Notice of Appeal to determine whether there are genuine, authentic, and legitimate planning issues to be adjudicated. In this matter, the Appellant, is concerned with the impacts on land titles and environmental issues due to climate change.

37The Tribunal finds these concerns of the Appellant to be outside the realm of the adjudicative process of the Tribunal.

ORDER

38The Motion is granted.

“D. Chipman”

D. CHIPMAN

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.