Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 19, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003592 (Formerly MM150017)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 42(10) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant: Y.H. Properties II Ltd.
Subject: Determination of the value of land
Property Address/Description: 2 Atlantic Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003592
Legacy Case No.: MM150017
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003592
Legacy Lead Case No.: MM150017
OLT Case Name: Y.H. Properties II Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: July 14, 2022, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Y.H. Properties II Ltd. ("Appellant") | D. Bronskill |
| City of Toronto ("City") | D. Abimbola |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR ON JUly 14, 2022, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal held a second Case Management Conference ("CMC") with regard to a legacy appeal from 2015 that has languished on the Tribunal's hearing docket.
2At the first CMC on June 16, 2022, the Tribunal had reluctantly set this second CMC date on a peremptory basis as it was advised that the locating of the actual building permit plans for a building permit that had been issued by the City was integral to this matter.
3At this second CMC, the Tribunal was advised that the building permit plans had been found, but that had not resulted in a resolution of the appeal, and that it was the intent of the City to bring a motion.
4For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal gave directions for the City's motion to be heard in writing, and specified the timing of the service and filing of the documentation.
DECISION
5In the lead up to the hearing, the Tribunal was advised that the missing building permit plans had been found. However that had not led to a resolution but rather that the City sought now to bring a motion that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear argument on the interpretation of the City's Parkland By-law, as part of the Appellant's appeal.
6Counsel for the City submitted that the most efficient approach for the motion would be for the City's motion to be heard in writing as it was straight forward and would largely be legal argument.
7Counsel for the Appellant agreed in principle, but also indicated that he was still seeking instructions from his client with regard to the motion.
8As this is a 2015 legacy appeal that has been languishing on the Tribunal's hearing docket, the Tribunal directs the following:
i. The City's Motion will be heard in writing;
ii. The City shall serve and file its Motion on or before August 15, 2022, and shall include its Book of Authorities;
iii. The Appellant shall serve and file its Response on or before August 29, 2022, and shall also include its Book of Authorities;
iv. The City shall serve and file any Reply on or before September 6, 2022, including any additional authorities;
v. All materials shall be filed in a timely basis with the Tribunal in both electronic and hard copy formats; and
vi. Time shall be of the essence.
9There will be no further notice.
10I am not seized.
11Scheduling permitting, I may be available for case management purposes.
12This 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.