Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 06, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000435
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 25(8) the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N. 3
Appellant: Darryl McNichol
Applicant: Peel District School Board
Subject: Conditions of Approval of a Development Permit Application
Description: To construct electrical serviced permanent signage on an existing lot that supports an institutional use (elementary school) and accessory facilities.
Reference Number: P/P/2021-2022/410
Property Address: 17247 Shaws Creek Road
Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000435
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000435
OLT Case Name: McNichol v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)
Heard: September 22, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Representative
Darryl McNichol
Self-represented
Peel District School Board
Jeff Vandenhoek
REPORT DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS AND HUGH S. WILKINS
INTRODUCTION
1Tribunal Members constitute Hearing Officers and the Tribunal functions as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO” or “Hearing Office”) for appeals under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.3 (“NEPDA”).
2This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the NEHO with respect to an appeal under section 25(8) of the NEPDA by Darryl McNichol (“Appellant”) against the Conditional Approval by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) of a permit applied for by Jeff Vandenhoek, on behalf of the Peel District School Board (“Applicant”). The permit seeks the construction of an electrical serviced permanent sign at 17247 Shaws Creek Road, in the Town of Caledon (“Subject Site”), that supports an institutional use (elementary school) and accessory facilities.
3Brandon Henderson, senior planner with the NEC, attended the CMC.
4At the first CMC, held on August 8, 2023, a Panel of Hearing Officers (differently constituted) determined that a second CMC would be scheduled to allow the Parties to engage in discussions and attempt to resolve the issues amongst themselves. If the Parties were able to reach such a settlement, they were directed to advise the Hearing Office in advance of or at the second CMC. If the Parties were not able to reach a settlement, the second CMC was to be utilized to finalize any outstanding issues, to schedule a Hearing, and to address any additional procedural matters.
SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS
5At the start of the CMC, Parties indicated that there had been little progress on settlement discussions. During the CMC, the NEHO stood down on two occasions to allow the Appellant and the Applicant to have further discussions. The NEHO explained to the Parties that an appeal is a structured adversarial process which includes opening statements, formal presentation of evidence-in-chief (including qualification of expert witnesses, if required), cross-examination, and arguments. It was further explained that successful settlement discussions could result in positive outcomes that would not otherwise be within the jurisdiction of the NEHO under the legislative scheme. Despite the NEHO’s attempts to encourage an outcome by way of settlement, the Appellant indicated that there was “no room for a settlement”. Accordingly, the NEHO concluded that it would be reasonable to set the matter down for a hearing.
SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS
6A draft Procedural Order was not filed with the NEHO prior to the CMC, and no Issues List had been prepared by the Parties.
7The NEHO directed that the Appellant file with the Case Coordinator on this matter a succinct Issues List, specifically referencing the Policy or Policies being relied on by the Appellant, on or before Tuesday, October 3, 2023. The Appellant was to consult the other Parties before finalizing the proposed Issues List and subsequently copy them on the version forwarded to the Case Coordinator.
8The proposed Issues List was not filed.
9On October 4, 2023, the Appellant informed the Hearing Office that he was withdrawing his appeal.
10Pursuant to s. 25(10.2) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the NEC’s decision is deemed to be confirmed and the file is now closed.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS HEARING OFFICER
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS HEARING OFFICER
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.