Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 23, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000507
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(43) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Sifton Properties Limited
Subject: Conditions of approval of draft plan of subdivision
Description: Proposing to develop a residential plan of subdivision.
Reference Number: 39T-SC1901
Property Address: Part Lot 17, Concession 2 S
Municipality/UT: Strathroy-Caradoc/Middlesex
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000507
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000507
OLT Case Name: Sifton Properties Limited v. Middlesex (County)
Heard: October 24, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Sifton Properties Limited
Paula Lombardi
County of Middlesex
Wayne Meagher David Samuels (in absentia)
Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc
Jennifer Meader
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE AND A. MASON ON OCTOBER 24, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal under s. 51(43) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Sifton Properties Limited (“Applicant”). The appeal is with respect to Conditions imposed by the County of Middlesex (“County”) and the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc (“Municipality”) on a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPOS”) put forth by the Applicant and approved by the County. The DPOS is proposed for lands known municipally as Part Lot 17, Concession 2 S in the Municipality (“Subject Property”).
2At the CMC, the Tribunal canvassed the Parties who confirmed that there was no issue with the service of the Notice of CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of two Affidavits of Service, both sworn by Andrea Ann Edward on September 13, 2023, which were marked as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, respectively. These Affidavits confirm that Notice was adequately provided, and as such, no further notice is required.
PARTY / PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST
3The statutory Parties to this appeal are the Applicant and the approval authority. At the CMC, there was some discussion regarding whether both the County and the Municipality were statutory Parties in this appeal or only the Municipality. The County’s Counsel explained that, with respect to plans for subdivisions only, the County is the approval authority here, but that the Municipality is then tasked with the process required to implement that draft plan and Conditions. To clarify, the County approved the DPOS and created the Conditions, but the Municipality was tasked with ensuring their completion. As such, with respect to plans for subdivision only, there was a symbiotic relationship wherein both the County and the Municipality were involved, despite the County having been the Party that approved the DPOS. Thus, both the County and the Municipality were accepted by the Tribunal as Parties to this appeal.
4The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party or Participant status prior to the CMC, and no one attended the CMC seeking status.
TIMING OF THE APPEAL AND LAPSING OF THE CONDITIONS
5The County approved the DPOS on November 10, 2020, and it was on that date that a number of Conditions to the final plan of approval for registration of this Subdivision were imposed by the County. As indicated in the Notice of Approval of the DPOS, the Conditions were to be satisfied within 3 years of the approval, and if they were not, the DPOS approval would lapse on November 10, 2023.
6In May 2023, the Applicant appealed these Conditions under s. 51(43) of the Act.
7The date of October 24, 2023 was originally reserved for a Hearing of this appeal. However, on request from the Parties, the Hearing date was converted to a CMC date.
8Thus, there was a concern regarding the timing of the Hearing, and whether, if scheduled after the lapsing date, it would be moot, since, unlike appeals under s. 51(39), where the Act specifies in s. 51(32) that the clock is paused (i.e. “the time period specified for the lapsing of approval does not begin until the date the Tribunal’s decision is issued in respect of the appeal or from the date of a notice issued by the Tribunal under subsection (51)”), there is no clear language in the Act about an appeal of Conditions pausing the clock for completing the Conditions. However, the approval authority can unilaterally extend the timeline under