Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 09, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001921
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended
Appellant: Blair Grysak (File No.002281)
Appellant: Joanne Grysak (File No. 002282)
Appellant: Sandra Woodcock (File No. 002283)
Applicant: David Springer Estate
Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission
Subject of appeal: Approval of a Development Permit Application to permit the placement of a special event tent on an existing lot, a temporary structure for summer use
Reference No.: H/C/2019-2020/230
Property Address/Description: 2372 Dundas Street
Municipality: City of Burlington
Upper Tier: Region of Halton
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001921
OLT Case Name: Grysak v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard: January 24, 2022 by Telephone Conference Call
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Representative |
|---|---|
| Joanne Grysak and Blair Grysak | Joanne Grysak |
| Sandra Woodcock | Did not appear |
| David Springer Estate (“Applicant”) | Victor Petrovski |
| Niagara Escarpment Commission | Lisa Grbinicek |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER ON JANUARY 24, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in this matter before the Tribunal as the designated Niagara Escarpment Hearing Officer, scheduled by the Tribunal at the first CMC conducted on October 29, 2021. The Appeal arises from the Niagara Escarpment Commission’s (“NEC”) approval of the Applicant’s application for a development permit to allow a special events tent to be situated on the property located at 2372 Dundas Street in the City of Burlington.
2At the last CMC, as a result of ongoing settlement discussions, the matter was put over to today’s date to determine if a resolution had been achieved, and if not, with the direction that the Parties be prepared to identify witnesses, determine the amount of hearing time required, file a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and have hearing dates set.
3It appears that the Applicant is, and intends to continue to be, a party to the Appeals. As this was not confirmed at the first CMC, the Tribunal confirms the status of the Applicant as a Party to the Appeals.
4Unfortunately, despite the fact that there have been additional discussions between the Parties, and the fact that the Parties may have reached the point of an agreement in principle as to measures relating to noise, Ms. Grysak and Mr. Petrovski were unprepared to confirm a final settlement or address any of the matters identified by the Tribunal. One of the two Appellants, Ms. Woodcock, did not attend the CMC.
5Although not certain, traffic and parking no longer appear to be an issue and the main focus is addressing noise levels. Mr. Petrovski has indicated a willingness, in general terms, to take steps with noise mitigation measures and the controlling of event attendees but due to difficulties in securing quotations or information as to what noise mitigation measures could, or would, be put into place, nothing concrete had been identified in that regard. Ms. Grysak indicated that if the noise could be addressed, the Appeals could likely be resolved and reported that she had been speaking with Ms. Woodcock, who did not think it necessary to attend. Ms. Grbinicek, on behalf of the NEC, was committed to continuing to assist the Parties if a settlement could be achieved or a Procedural Order and Issues List was necessary.
6The question was raised by Ms. Grysak as to the time line in place for the use of the tent structure under the Development Permit, and when it might, in the future, be replaced with a permanent structure. Such a future proposal is not before the Tribunal and it was again confirmed by the NEC, to the Appellant, that any such future proposal would be the subject of an entirely new application that would be considered at that time, and otherwise the proposed tent structure, if approved would be in place indefinitely until replaced.
7Since the Parties have not settled the matter, and are not yet prepared to proceed to a hearing, the Tribunal will not waste its limited resources to again schedule a further CMC until the Parties are ready to proceed with a settlement or alternatively to proceed to a hearing, with a Procedural Order and Issues List, ready to present to the Tribunal.
8The Parties are accordingly directed as follows:
(a) All Parties, including Ms. Woodcock, are to arrange, with the assistance of Ms. Grbinicek on behalf of the NEC, to again meet by telephone conference call to concretely discuss the terms of a settlement if that is to be put into place. The Applicant will use his best efforts to expediently confirm, in concrete terms, the proposed mitigation measures so that they might be reduced to writing in the Minutes of Settlement;
(b) At such time as the Parties have reached an agreement, or at such time as the Parties have determined that they must proceed to a hearing of the issues on the merits, they will, with the assistance of Ms. Grbinicek, provide a notice of readiness to the Tribunal indicating that they are ready to reconvene a further CMC for the purposes of constructive case management of the Appeals;
(c) At the scheduled CMC, the Tribunal will receive submissions that either: (1) arrangements are in place for a settlement confirmed in written Minutes of Settlement; or alternatively, (2) the Appeals cannot be resolved, consider the form of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, and schedule a hearing on the merits for one or both of the Appeals;
(d) If the Parties are to proceed to a hearing, they are to cooperate, with the assistance of the NEC, in the preparation of a draft Procedural Order and Issues List in the form provided for on the Tribunal’s web site;
(e) In order to ensure the orderly resolution of the issues in any settlement and to ensure that both Appellants are properly before the Tribunal for case management, Ms. Woodcock is directed to attend the settlement discussions and the next scheduled CMC. Should the Appellant Sandra Woodcock fail to appear in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal it may exercise its discretion to dismiss her Appeal for non-attendance upon further final notice in accordance with section 19 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act;
(f) Unless they have otherwise served a notice of readiness for a further CMC, the Parties, through Ms. Grbinicek, are to provide a written status report to the Tribunal no later than April 15, 2022 as to their progress. The Tribunal may then provide a time period and deadline for the provision of a further status update, or may, alternatively, schedule the next CMC, through written communication from the Case Coordinator.
9The Tribunal will schedule such CMC or other hearing events as are necessary based on the status report(s) and requests of the Parties.
10All further notices with respect to any scheduled hearing events, including the next CMC, will be provided by email to the Applicant, the Appellants, the NEC and to any other parties identified to receive notices with respect to these Appeals, and not by public notice.
11This Hearing Officer is not seized.
“David L. Lanthier”
DAVID L. LANTHIER HEARING OFFICER 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.