Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 23, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001879 (Formerly PL070987), OLT-22-003456 (Formerly PL110189)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: By-law No. 64-21 Municipality: City of Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001120 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL070987 OLT Case Name: Salna v. Richmond Hill (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 22 Municipality: City of Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001530 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL070987
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellants: Amir-Hessam Limited & 668152 Ontario Limited 583753 Ontario Limited Yonge Bayview Holdings Inc. K.J. Beamish Holdings Limited Signature Developments Inc. TSMJC Properties Inc. Haulover Investments Limited. New Era Developments (2011) Inc. Rice Commercial Group and Major Mac Realty Inc. Loblaw Properties Limited E. Manson Investments North Leslie Residential Landowners Group Inc. Montanaro Estates Limited and William & Yvonne Worden Baif Developments Limited Arten Developments Inc. Stonecourt Construction Inc. P. Campagna Investments Ltd., P.A. Campagna and 1480420 Ontario Ltd. Ram Nischal, Rekha Nischal, and Neelam Narula and Raj Kumar Angelo, Louise and Josephine Cimetta and Shiplake Developments Ltd. Great Land (Westwood) Inc. 775377 Ontario Ltd. (Belmont) Robert Salna and Robert Salna Holdings Inc. AME-SON Holdings Ltd. Corsica Development Inc. Elginbay Corporation Sitzer Group Holdings No. 1 Limited, Grall Corporation Limited, Natweiss Investments Limited, 967933 Ontario Limited & Loblaws Inc. (owners of the Richmond Heights Shopping Centre) Dickson 48 Property Inc. Sedgewick Property Inc., Long Body Homes Inc. and 1419079 Ontario Inc. 1191621 Ontario Inc. 1835942 Ontario Inc. 1122270 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Failure of the Regional Municipality of York to announce a decision respecting the proposed new Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill (Now the City of Richmond Hill) Municipality: City of Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003456 Legacy Case No.: PL110189 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003456 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL110189 OLT Case Name: Cimetta v. Richmond Hill (City)
Heard: June 6, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Robert Salna | Jeffrey Streisfield |
| Toronto and Region Conservation Authority | Tim Duncan |
| City of Richmond Hill | Carlton Thorne |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON JUNE 6, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding Robert Salna’s (“Appellant”) appeal under s. 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (the “Act”) regarding the proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 22 (“OPA 22”) by the City of Richmond Hill (the “City”).
2This was also the first CMC regarding the appeal by the Appellant under s. 17(40) of the Act regarding the failure of the Regional Municipality of York (the “Region”) to announce a decision respecting the proposed new Official Plan for the City.
3The Appellant has a property known municipally as 83 Sylvan Crescent, in the City (“Subject Property”). In addition, the Appellant is also a party to two legacy appeals under s. 53(19) of the Act and s. 34(19) of the Act. These matters were not discussed at this CMC. They are noted for information purposes and context only.
4The Affidavit of Service duly sworn for both of the Appeals is on file with the Tribunal and was marked as Exhibit 1.
PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
5Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) sought party status and informed the Tribunal that they are responsible for Special Policy Area (“SPA”) establishment for approval by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The Subject Property is potentially impacted by such a determination and has been one of the possible reasons for the appeals. The TRCA also informed that they could call the appropriate experts to provide appropriate opinion evidence to assist the Tribunal. The City and the Appellant consented and the Tribunal granted Party status to TRCA.
6Denis Tarsky who has a property known municipally as 33 Sylvan Crescent, in the City, sought party status. Mr. Tarsky explained that the TRCA has held back approval of his site plan application pending the resolution of the appeals for OPA 22. Mr. Tarsky believed that the proceedings in this matter would have the effect of allowing his site plan application. Mr. Tarsky could not delineate any planning policy basis for the granting of party status or what issues or evidence he had considered for consideration of his party status. The Counsel for TRCA took note of Mr. Tarsky’s comments regarding TRCA staff holding back approvals for his site plan application. Considering the totality of Mr. Tarsky’s submission, the Tribunal determined that he did not qualify for granting of party status and none was granted.
7There were no requests for participant status, and none were granted.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES
8The City informed that Appellant Salna is the sole appellant regarding OPA 22 and Zoning By-Law No. 64-21 (“ZBL 64-21”) appeals. The City would like to understand from this Appellant what sections of these respective instruments they are appealing so that the City may submit supporting planning evidence to have the Tribunal authorize the remaining parts of the OPA 22 and ZBL 64-21 to come into force. The City further submitted that a hearing into the merits of the Appellant’s appeals need to be set at the earliest possible time.
9In spite of the age of this file with some issues going back to 2008, the Appellant submitted that they have been seeking but have not received information on modelling that was carried out to determine SPA boundaries. The Appellant stated that this information is necessary for them is to provide their evidence. The Appellant submitted that given these issues it was premature to consider setting up a hearing on merits of the matter.
10In order to move forward with the processing of this matter, the Parties agreed to proceed per the following steps:
By June 13, 2021, the City will inform the Appellant and the Tribunal what their asks are, if they were to request partial approval of the planning instruments under appeal;
By June 21, 2022, the Appellant shall provide to the City and the Tribunal with their Issues List; or,
- If they plan to file a threshold motion to determine if setting up of a hearing on merits is premature.
By June 28, 2021, the Appellant shall provide particulars of their asks to the City and the Tribunal;
By July 12, 2022, the Parties shall inform the Tribunal as follows:
- Provide a draft Procedural Order with an Issues List due by August 12, 2022; or,
- Confirmation of a date for motion having previously requested and received the same through the Tribunal Case Coordinator.
11This Member is not seized.
12There will be no further notice.
13This Member will provide case management support pending further events and their outcome.
14The directions in this Decision are so ordered.
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR 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.