Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 01, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001989
(Formerly, PL180447)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Community Voices of Fort Erie Inc.
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 41
Municipality: Town of Fort Erie
OLT Case No.: OLT 22-001989
OLT Case No.: PL180447
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT 22-001989
OLT File No.: PL180447
OLT Case Name: Community Voices of Fort Erie Inc. v. Fort Erie (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Community Voices of Fort Erie Inc.
Subject: By-law No. 42-2018
Municipality: Town of Fort Erie
OLT Case No.: OLT 22-002009
OLT Case No.: PL180447
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT 22-001989
OLT File No.: PL180448
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Community Voices of Fort Erie Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Property Address/Description: Property on the south side of Dominion Rd. between Bardol Ave. and Bassett Ave.
Municipality: Town of Fort Erie
Municipal File No.: 350308-108
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002011
OLT Case No.: PL180447
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001989
OLT File No.: PL180449
Heard: February 1, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Community Voices of Fort
David Donnelly and
Erie Inc. (“Appellant”)
Martyn Siek (student-at-law)
Town of Fort Erie (“Town”)
Thomas Hanrahan
800460 Ontario Limited
Thomas Richardson
(“Applicant”)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER ON FEBRUARY 1, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This third and final Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was scheduled by the Tribunal at the hearing event of June 17, 2021. The hearing of these Appeals, by video hearing, is scheduled to commence on April 25, 2022 and is already governed by a Procedural Order and Issues List.
2The purpose of this CMC was to deal with any outstanding procedural issues, and the possibility of a conversion of a hearing to an in-person hearing format.
3Prior to the CMC, counsel for the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal to inquire with respect to a noted discrepancy in the prior CMC decision, whereby the request to convert the hearing format to an in-person was to be discussed at this CMC, but the further opportunity was extended for the Parties to make the request no later than February 28, 2022. Ultimately, this duplicated opportunity, and uncertainty as to such requests, are moot as the Tribunal’s operations at this time will not accommodate any such conversion and the scheduled hearing will proceed as a video hearing.
4There were no other procedural matters to address with the Tribunal save and except for the matter again raised by the Applicant as to the possibility of introducing the evidence-in-chief of all of the expert witnesses at the hearing through written reports and statements in lieu of oral testimony. This was the subject of a Motion that was brought before the Tribunal at the prior CMC, but as noted in that CMC decision, the Motion was not adjudicated and instead was withdrawn. There did not appear to be a consensus of counsel as to the basis upon which the Motion was withdrawn.
5The Applicant suggested that this request might again be placed before the presiding Panel to hear the Appeals.
6Counsel for the Appellant voiced strenuous objections to this process, and the possibility of the request being again advanced by the Applicant, due to the complexity of the issues before the Tribunal and the considerable advance warning thought necessary for the preparation of witness statements and reports due to the very different form of such written statements that would be required if this were to occur.
7The Panel Member’s concern was that such a dispute as to the hearing’s evidentiary processes, if left unresolved until the hearing, would erode the better part of the first day of the hearing if such a motion was to be brought at the opening of the hearing. The Tribunal was also inclined to agree that advance preparations for a 15-day hearing would be substantially different if viva voce evidence was to be substituted exclusively with written witness statements.
8Since leaving the matter unresolved was not considered prudent, the Applicant was directed by the Panel to seek instructions and report to the Tribunal by the following week definitively as to whether it would indeed pursue this proposed, and rather significant, change to the ordinary process of hearing oral evidence-in-chief, so that the necessary motion could be scheduled.
9Mr. Richardson has now communicated to the Tribunal that the Applicant will not pursue the matter of the use of witness statements as evidence-in-chief in the hearing and no motion will be brought with respect to that request. This procedural issue is now resolved on a final basis.
10The video hearing of the Appeals will accordingly proceed as scheduled. Counsel have advised that the hearing plan will be provided without delay in accordance with paragraph 21 of the Procedural Order.
11No further CMC directives of the Tribunal are accordingly required.
“David L. Lanthier”
DAVID L. LANTHIER
VICE-CHAIR
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.