Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 07, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002736
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 42(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.O.18, as amended
Appellant: Jianbin Wang
Subject: Appeal of Refusal of Permit for Construction
Property Address: 480 Coverdale Road (Rockcliffe Park Heritage Conservation District)
Legal Description: Part of Lot E on Plan 4M-61; Part of Devonshire Road, as closed by Judges Order LT30380 being described as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 4R-33510, subject to an easement as in LT30380, Rockcliffe Park
Municipality: City of Ottawa
OLT Case No.: OLT 22-002736
OLT Case Name: Wang v. Ottawa (City)
Heard: June 22, 2022 by telephone conference call
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Jianbin Wang (“Applicant”/“Appellant”)
C. McConkey P. Osterhout (not present)
City of Ottawa (“City”)
L. Enta
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Introduction
1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened for the Applicant’s appeal to the City’s refusal under the Ontario Heritage Act (“OHA”) of a permit for the construction of a dwelling at 480 Cloverdale Road (“site”) in the Rockwood Park neighbourhood, Ottawa.
Parties and Participants
2The statutory Parties to this appeal are the Applicant and the City.
3Two requests for Party status were filed in advance of the CMC.
4Kim Ratushny requests Party status as owner of 484 Cloverdale Road, with her spouse, Kent Manderville, being the owner-occupants of the dwelling abutting to the north of the site. Ms. Ratushny participated through extensive submissions throughout the City’s review process for the requested permit and continues to oppose the request on the primary issue of massing, among other concerns. Ms. Ratushny is concerned that modifications to the site plans may change through this hearing process, and requests the opportunity, as a Party, to address the issues. Ms. Ratushny may wish to call professional evidence if considered necessary upon review of the statutory Parties’ submissions. If Party status is refused, Ms. Ratushny requests Participant status.
5Michael Kelen requests Party status as a member of the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Committee. Mr. Kelen was unable to attend this CMC and Ms. Ratushny spoke on his behalf. Mr. Kelen intends to call two professional witnesses if he considers them necessary to address neighbourhood character issues at the hearing. If Party status is refused, Mr. Kelen seeks Participant status.
6The Applicant opposes these Party status requests and asks that Participant status be granted for the following reasons. Although the Tribunal may grant Party status where deemed necessary to adjudicate fully on the issue, both the Applicant and the City will tender professional evidence on their positions, thus negating the need for further evidence. The Applicant suggests that Participant status would enable these persons to fully express their views on the issues. For an efficient three-day hearing as anticipated, the Applicant suggests that further evidence is not warranted beyond that to be provided by the statutory Parties. Should Party status be granted, the Applicant requests a “common interest class” under Rule 8.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) with direction on the extent of their involvement. The Applicant further advises that Mr. Kelen’s group, the Rockcliffe Park Heritage Committee, appears to be an unincorporated entity.
7The Applicant referenced a Decision of the Tribunal’s predecessor, the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”), wherein the OMB Member notes that matters under the OHA s. 42(6) “are normally matters to be adjudicated between the proponent and the approval authority” with the exception where all Parties might agree on other Parties being involved (re PROUD Port Dalhousie, 2007 CarswellOnt 8335, para. 2).
8The City does not object to the Party status requests but agrees with the Applicant that further professional evidence is likely unnecessary for a complete hearing on the merits of this appeal.
9Following the CMC, Ms. Ratushny filed an email to the Tribunal, and copied the Parties, to clarify and build on certain statements made at the CMC. The Applicant objected to these submissions. The Tribunal will not give consideration to the post-CMC submissions and will make its determination on the facts and arguments heard at the CMC.
10On the submissions at the CMC, the Tribunal will grant Party status to Ms. Ratushny and Mr. Kelen under Rule 8.2. The Tribunal grants them individual Party status and not a common interest class under Rule 8.4 as suggested by the Applicant. Ms. Ratushny’s primary, but not sole, issue relates to the effect of massing on heritage character relative to her dwelling abutting the site, while Mr. Kelen’s issues relate to the heritage character of the broader neighbourhood. These persons bring local, relevant perspectives to the issues of maintaining heritage character in the neighbourhood, which the Tribunal finds will be helpful and necessary in these proceedings for a hearing de novo. The Added Parties are advised to review the Tribunal’s Rule 8.1 on the role and obligations as a Party.
11The Tribunal heard that Ms. Ratushny may call a professional witness should she consider it necessary after considering all documents, only recently received, and any potential changes to the site plan that may be proposed. Mr. Kelen, through Ms. Ratushny, was said to anticipate calling two professional witnesses.
12For the Applicant’s preparation of the Procedural Order (“PO”), the Tribunal directs the Added Parties to advise the Tribunal and the Parties whom they intend to call as witnesses by July 29, 2022. Such witnesses must not unduly duplicate the proposed evidence of the City. The PO will ensure a meeting of the experts in the pursuit of areas of agreement, respective evidence to be given without unnecessary duplication, and the order of evidence for the hearing.
13To the OMB Decision referenced by the Applicant, the Tribunal finds that, although the Applicant opposes the adding of Parties here, the requesting persons are neighbourhood residents with active involvement in heritage matters whom the Tribunal anticipates will tender relevant evidence and/or submissions for consideration of the Tribunal.
Mediation
14The Parties advised that they will be mindful of the potential for mediation or settlement through their drafting of the Issues List and will advise the Tribunal should mediation be sought.
Next Steps
15The Parties requested a second CMC and agreed to finalize the Procedural Order and Issues List subject to this Decision on the Party status requests. The Tribunal directs the Applicant to file those documents with the Case Coordinator five days before the next CMC.
16The next CMC will be held by Telephone Conference Call at 9 a.m. on Friday, September 23, 2022. No further Notice will be given.
17Individual(s) are directed to call 416-212-8012 or Toll Free 1-866-633-0848 on the assigned date at the correct time. When prompted, enter the code 8382912 to be connected to the call. It is the responsibility of the person(s) participating in the call to ensure that they are properly connected to the call and at the correct time. Questions prior to the call may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
Order
18The Tribunal Orders the rulings and directions as contained in this Decision.
19This Member is not seized but may be available through the Case Coordinator should the need arise.
“S. Tousaw”
S. tousaw
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.