Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 06, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003819
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant: Antonio Buttice et al
Subject: By-law No. 67-2022
Description: To permit a 4 Storey multiple dwelling Reference Number: BL 67-2022 Property Address: 1913, 1925 & 1949 Devonshire Court Municipality/UT: City of Windsor
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003819
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003819 OLT Case Name: Buttice v. Windsor (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34 (25) of the Planning Act Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: Antonio Buttice et al
Request for: Request for Directions
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: 2811035 Ontario Inc.
Request for: Request for Dismissal Without a Hearing
Heard: February 28, 2022 by Written Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2811035 Ontario Inc.
Analee Baroudi
City of Windsor
Wira Vendrasco
Antonia Buttice
Raymond Colautti
Rod and Paula Rankin
Raymond Colautti
Roger and Jen Bastiaan
Raymond Colautti
Dr. Norman and Beverly Marshall
Raymond Colautti
Cherie and Brian Laughton
Raymond Colautti
Charlotte Colautti
Raymond Colautti
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. deBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order is the result of a written Motion brought by 2811035 Ontario Inc. (the “Applicant”) under s. 34(25) of the Planning Act and s. 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to dismiss the present Appeal without a full hearing. The original appeal concerns the City of Windsor’s (the “City”) approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment for the property municipally known as 1913, 1925 and 1949 Devonshire Court in the City of Windsor. The Applicant is requesting an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 8600 to allow multiple dwellings as an additional permitted use subject to additional provisions.
2At a previous Case Management Conference (the “CMC”) on October 21, 2022, the (“Appellants”) (Antonio Buttice, Rod and Paula Rankin, Roger and Jen Bastiaan, Dr. Norman and Beverly Marshall, Cherie and Brian Laughton and Charlotte Colautti) through their counsel, Raymond Colautti, brought a Discovery Motion before the Tribunal requesting that the Applicant and the City provide the following information that would be needed in order for the Appellants to make their Appeal relevant:
a. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from the developer, the developer's consultants and anyone at the planning department in the City relating to the proposed development and the re-zoning of the subject properties.
b. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Tracey Pillon-Abbs (Pillon Abbs Inc.) and Adam Szymczak (City of Windsor Planning Department) concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
c. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Adam Szymczak (City of Windsor Planning Department) and Thom Hunt (City of Windsor Planning Department) concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
d. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Jim Abbs (City of Windsor Planning Department) and Thom Hunt (City of Windsor Planning Department) concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
e. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Tracey Pillon-Abbs (Pillon Abbs Inc.) and Thom Hunt (City of Windsor Planning Department) concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
f. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Tracey Pillon-Abbs (Pillon Abbs Inc.) and Jim Abbs (City of Windsor Planning Department) concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
g. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Tracey Pillon-Abbs (Pillon Abbs Inc.) and Councillor Chris Holt and/ or Councillor Rino Bortolin concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
h. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Tracey Pillon-Abbs (Pillon Abbs Inc.) and Kristina Tang (City of Windsor staff) concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
i. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Councillor Chris Holt and any City of Windsor Staff concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
j. All emails, correspondence, memos exchanged to and from Councillor Chris Holt, and/or Councillor Rino Bortolin and Mike Spineti (a principal of the proponent corporation) concerning the proposed development and the subject rezoning application.
k. Copy of the audio-visual recording made of the complete public open house meeting in May 2022.
l. Copy of the audio-visual recording made of the complete DHSC meeting on 7 March 2022.
m. Copy of the audio-visual recording made of the complete City Council meeting on 21 March 2022.
n. Produce any files, notes, memoranda, emails and correspondence related to any inquiries for re-zoning of the subject properties, and the feasibility of such re-zoning made by the prior owner to City of Windsor staff subsequent to the issuance of the Demolition permit for the former St. George's Church.
o. Produce the metadata and qualitative data used to produce the shadow study.
p. Produce any other shadow studies, or iterations of this shadow study including metadata and qualitative data associated therewith.
3The Tribunal through its disposition (see Buttice et al. v Windsor (City), 2022 CanLII 115373 (ON LT), allowed the request for the following items as the Tribunal deemed these items were the only relevant planning materials that could be helpful to the Appellants’ case:
a. The Applicant is to provide the Appellants the metadata and qualitative data that was used by ADA Architects Inc. to finalize the shadow study.
b. The City is to provide to the Appellants a copy of the public portion of the audio-visual recording made of the Development and Heritage Standing Committee of the City of Windsor’s meeting that took place on March 7, 2022; and,
c. The City is to provide the Appellants a copy of public portion of the audio-visual recording made of the City Council meeting that took place on March 21, 2022.
4The Tribunal’s approved items were submitted to the Appellants by the Parties within the agreed upon timelines.
MOTION TO DISMISS
5The Tribunal was made aware during the Discovery Motion process that the Applicant would possibly file a Motion to Dismiss once the disposition of the Discovery Motion had been completed.
6A Motion to Dismiss Affidavit was served by the Applicant on the other Parties and filed with the Tribunal on January 26, 2023. This Affidavit sworn by Hesham Baroudi has been marked by the Tribunal as Exhibit 1 for this Motion to Dismiss. The Tribunal marked the Moving Party’s Motion Record as Exhibit 2 and Legal Submissions Brief as Exhibit 3 for this Motion.
Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure - Motions
7Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules and Practice and Procedure concerns Motions. At the request of the Applicant, the Tribunal directed the Parties that this motion was to be held in writing. The Moving Party or Applicant in this matter, submitted materials to the Tribunal and other Parties on January 26, 2023. In accordance with Rule 10.3, once the Moving Party serves notice to the other parties (in this case the City of Windsor and the parties represented by Raymond Colautti), these parties have seven (7) business days to respond in writing to the Motion. Once the response has been received by the Moving Party, the Moving Party may reply to the response within three (3) business days of the written response.
8The City provided a response to the Moving Party within the required seven business days (marked as Exhibit 4).
9Mr. Colautti contacted the other parties and the case coordinator who had carriage of this matter via email that he would not be able to meet the required deadline. Mr. Colautti stated through email that he would be away on holidays from February 3, 2023 to February 20, 2023. Mr. Colautti stated through email that he would be able to respond ten (10) days after his return from holidays.
10Ms. Baroudi, representing the Moving Party, via email to the other parties and the case coordinator, did not consent to the extension as requested by Mr. Colautti.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ON THE ADJOURNMENT
11Mr. Colautti presented documents via email to the Parties and the case coordinator on February 28, 2023. These responding documents were submitted sixteen (16) business days after the required deadline as described in Rule 10.3.
12The Tribunal received correspondence through Ms. Baroudi that these materials were received after the required deadline and that a formal adjournment had not been granted by the Tribunal. Ms. Baroudi stated that the acceptance of these late submittals could be a cause for prejudice against her client’s Motion.
13The Tribunal notes that Mr. Colautti is a lawyer and is not considered by the Tribunal to be a “lay” representative in this matter. Mr. Colautti has demonstrated through the previous motion his understanding of motions and the motion process. It was expected that Mr. Colautti would be able to follow the same process as was completed in the Motion of Discovery.
14The Tribunal took into consideration the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, especially with respect to the rights of participation and the rights of a party to be heard when making its decision on the late filing of the response to the Motion.
15The Tribunal finds that the Appellants’ request was not done in a formal fashion via a Motion and vacation is not considered to be an emergency. However, due to this being a Motion to Dismiss, the Tribunal will give more leeway to the Appellants in order for the Tribunal to have the proper materials before it in order to offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the merits of the proceedings, as is stated in the Tribunal’s powers as set in Rule 1.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
16The Moving Party stated that the responding documents to the Motion to Dismiss could be deemed prejudicial to the Moving Party. However, the prejudice to the Appellants if the Tribunal were not to allow the service and filing of their responding materials would clearly be significant. The Tribunal rules that due to the gravity of the motion before the Tribunal, which could result in the dismissal of the Appellants’ proceedings, the Tribunal is accepting the Appellants’ documents to allow the rules of natural justice to prevail for this motion.
MOTION TO DISMISS AND GROUNDS FOR REQUEST
17The materials that have been accepted by the Tribunal for the disposition of the Motion consist of;
Exhibit 1: The Affidavit of Service of the Motion dated January 26, 2023;
Exhibit 2: The Motion Record including the Affidavit and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty of Tracey Pillon-Abbs;
Exhibit 3: Legal Submissions Brief dated January 26, 2023;
Exhibit 4: City of Windsor Response to Motion dated January 31, 2023;
Exhibit 5: Signed Affidavit of Service of the Response by the Appellants dated February 27, 2023;
Exhibit 6: Legal Submissions Brief by the Appellants dated February 27, 2023.
18The Applicant is seeking an Order of the Tribunal to dismiss the Appeal without a hearing, pursuant to s. 34(25)(1)(i) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) on the grounds that “the reasons set out in the notice of appeal did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal” and s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act (the “OLTA”) on the grounds that “the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success”.
Evidence of Expert Witness
19The Tribunal deemed Ms. Tracey Pillon-Abbs as a witness qualified to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning in this matter. In her Affidavit, Ms. Pillon-Abbs was able to give a fulsome background to the Subject Property and to the Application process. It is understood by the Tribunal that the Subject Property were once the site of St. George’s Church. Ms. Pillon-Abbs provided background to the Subject Property’s history. The Subject Property were listed on the City of Windsor Heritage Register; however, they were never designated as a heritage site. The Subject Property were removed from the City’s Heritage Register is 2015. The church and adjoining hall were demolished in 2016 and rezoned from Institutional District 1.1 (ID1.1) to Residential District 1.1 (RD1.1) with site specific provisions to allow the construction of three dwellings.
20The Applicant purchased the Subject Property on February 1, 2021. The Applicant proposed a new building concept which would be a four (4) storey building with 23 residential units. The Applicant contracted ADA Inc. Architect (the Architect”) to engage with the City of Windsor as to the pre-submission process and required studies to support the new proposal.
21Along with the required studies, the Applicant held a public consultation open house with property owners within the notification zone. The City participated and recorded the open house to provide a summary of the comments received and for note-taking purposes. All of the Appellants were in attendance at this open house.
22On August 31, 2021, Ms. Pillon-Abbs submitted the application and the required studies to rezone the Subject Property to permit a multi-unit dwelling as an additional permitted use. The file was deemed completed on September 28, 2021. After consultation with other Municipal departments and external agencies, additional studies were requested which included a shadow study, a revised Built Heritage Impact Study and revised elevations. After these studies were filed in February of 2022, the Application was presented to the City of Windsor Development and Heritage Standing Committee (the “DHSC”) meeting on March 7, 2022. The Appellants listed in this appeal were in attendance at this meeting and participated in the meeting stating their concerns about the application.
23On March 21, 2022, City Council considered the Application and gave approval of the Application. On April 11, 2022, Council passed By-law No. 67-2022 allowing “dwelling units located at grade and/or above commercial uses in a combined building” and “multiple dwelling” as permitted uses.
24Ms. Pillon-Abbs agrees with the Council decision in approving the application. It was her professional opinion that the Application has regard to matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Planning Act and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conforms to all the relevant policies of the City of Windsor Official Plan and complies with the general intent of the City of Windsor Zoning By-law.
25It is Ms. Pillon-Abbs’ professional opinion that the grounds of the Appeal are unsupported assertions and allegations that do not hold any apparent land use planning grounds. In her opinion, the Appellants place undue emphasis concerning the previous Heritage registration, however, the Subject Property was taken off of the Heritage Register in 2015, which is the right of the City. Using a zoning change that was completed in 2016 as a legitimate planning issue is not one that can be considered by the Tribunal. As Ms. Pillon-Abbs opined, planning instruments are not “frozen in time” and are subject to change as with any new application.
26In Ms. Pillon-Abbs’ opinion, the Appellants have not provided any legitimate planning issues or notice of expert testimony that would be helpful in their case. Ms. Pillon-Abbs is still of the opinion that the Application as approved by the City of Windsor council, is consistent with the PPS 2020, conforms to the City of Windsor Official Plan and complies with the City of Windsor Zoning By-law. The Application represents good land use planning.
Position of the Moving Party
27Ms. Baroudi cited the Tribunal to the often-referred case of Toronto (City) v. East Beach Community Association [1996] O.M.B.D. No. 1890, specifically paragraphs 9 to 12, which set out the following factors that need to be considered when making a decision on whether an appeal should be dismissed without conducting a hearing on the merits:
a. The authenticity of the reasons stated and if those reasons are genuine and legitimate;
b. Whether there are legitimate planning issues that would affect a decision in a hearing; and
c. Whether the issues being raised are worthy of the adjudicative process.
28In consideration of the issues being raised by the Appellants, Ms. Baroudi argued that these issues do not have any land planning relevance. It is not in the Tribunal’s power or interest to debate inferred issues of bias or perceived conflict of interest through the planning process. It is not in the Tribunal’s power to rule on zoning changes that occurred years ago and it is not a part of this Application’s process. Ms. Baroudi stated that the Appellants have not raised any relevant planning issues that can be ruled on by the Tribunal.
29Ms. Baroudi also referred to Todaro v Wasaga Beach (Town), 2019 CanLII 23000 (ON LPAT), paragraphs 25 to 31, and paragraphs 57 and 58 to submit that the onus is on Mr. Collautti, in this case, to demonstrate sufficient and legitimate planning grounds to show the prospect of success in an appeal. Ms. Baroudi submitted that an appellant cannot appear to a motion and state that you intend to call witnesses. It is every Party’s obligation to bring the prospect of sustainable evidence to the motion itself.
30In reference to Kangappaden v Brampton (City), 2021 CanLII 37094 (ON LPAT), paragraphs 39 to 43, Ms. Baroudi submitted that this decision demonstrates that in some circumstances the Tribunal is not required to hold a hearing to satisfy an appellant who is not happy with a municipal decision if there is not any demonstrated evidence to support the Appeal. An Appeal can be dismissed in some circumstances if the appellants have not provided any evidence that would support their case in response to the Motion. Apprehensions are not a legitimate planning issue.
31In Silvestri v. Hamilton (City), 2022 CarswellOnt 14384, paragraph 16 and paragraphs 30 to 33, Ms. Baroudi submitted that the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the Tribunal found that the appellant did not raise any legitimate land planning issues. It is to be noted that the Tribunal demonstrated that dismissal provisions are disjunctive in nature, meaning only one reason for dismissal needs to be met in order for the appeal to be dismissed.
32Ms. Baroudi submitted that based on her legal submissions the Appellants have raised apprehensions in many areas of the proposed development. These apprehensions are in the areas of heritage, shadowing, privacy, parking, traffic, sewer infrastructure, stormwater management, electrical infrastructure and yards and open spaces. Ms. Baroudi stated that while these apprehensions can be legitimate planning grounds, the Appellants have not provided a basis for them or any evidence that they will be presenting to the Tribunal to support their position. Ms. Baroudi submitted that the Appellants’ issues concerning sewer infrastructure, stormwater management, electrical infrastructure, yards and open spaces are issues that pertain to the Site Plan process and are not part of the Zoning By-law Amendment process.
33In support of the Applicant’s position, Ms. Baroudi submitted that the Applicant has submitted all the requested supporting studies and documentation in the areas of planning, shadowing, traffic, heritage and stormwater management along with an updated site plan. The Applicant revised the Heritage Study and Planning report to satisfy the concerns that were raised by City staff.
34Concerning the issue of prior zoning, Ms. Baroudi argued that the Appellants are aspiring the Subject Property to remain as a development for only three dwellings. Once again, Ms. Baroudi argued there has not been any attempt to identify a basis for this argument or to demonstrate how the Appellants would defend this position.
35Concerning the issue of bias, conflict of interest and improper conduct of city staff or Council members, Ms. Baroudi argued that these issues do not represent legitimate land planning concerns that are within the power of the Tribunal to adjudicate.
36Ms. Baroudi submitted that it appears that the Appellants are simply not happy with the decision of Council. The Appellants were engaged in the decision-making process and had their concerns heard by City Council. Simply being unhappy with a decision is not a relevant reason for an Appeal to be heard at the Tribunal.
City of Windsor Position
37The City was in agreement with the Applicant’s position. The City agreed that the Appellants have not demonstrated any land planning issues that would be relevant to their Appeal. The City is in agreement with the legal arguments that have been set out in the Applicant’s Legal Submissions Brief. The City agreed that the Tribunal should dismiss the appeal.
Appellant’s Position
38The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal states, amongst other items, that the approval of the Zoning By-law does not conform the City’s Official Plan with respect to the Walkerville Heritage Area. The Notice also states that the proposed size, massing and setbacks do not conform to the Walkerville Heritage Area of the Official Plan and that the proposed development ignores the results of the prior Heritage Impact Study of October 23, 2015.
39In the Appellants’ legal submissions brief, Mr. Colautti argued that Toronto v. East Beach Community Association demonstrates that the Tribunal should not take away the rights of an Appeal lightly, readily or without serious consideration of each case. The Tribunal must seek out whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process. As noted above, he also argued that this case states that this Tribunal is entitled to examine the reasons stated to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons.
40Mr. Colautti argued that the Applicant “knew or should have known” when purchasing the property that the Subject Property was zoned for three (3) separate single dwelling units and the Applicant “knew or ought to have known that” the Interim Control By-law would not allow the City to accept any request for re-zoning of the Subject Property for more than five (5) dwelling units.
41Mr. Colautti submitted that there are serious concerns of bias stemming from the relationship of the Applicant’s Planner to City Staff and a Member of City Council. He stated that City Staff and Councillors have too personal of a relationship with the Applicant, causing Council to not act in a fair manner concerning this application.
42Mr. Colautti argued that in Old St. Boniface Residents Association Inc. v. Winnipeg (City), 1990 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1990] 3 SCR 1170, objectors or supporters must be heard by members of Council who are capable of persuasion. Mr. Colautti believes that the Council’s bias towards the Applicant creates sufficient grounds for the merits of the Appeal to be heard.
43Mr. Colautti submitted that the Appellants’ cross-examination of the Applicant’s expert witnesses will demonstrate the issues of bias and that the Council’s decision was not made in the best interests of the City, but rather, of individual members of the City Staff and Council.
44Mr. Colautti submitted that yes, the Appellants attended all of the public meetings and were a part of the public process, however, their concerns were never addressed in any of these public forums. The Appellants were never given the opportunity (except for five (5) minutes of time before Council) to vet or ask questions of the consultants that filed the reports. This hearing will afford the Appellants the only opportunity to ask questions of the persons who had written these reports.
APPLICABLE LEGISLATION
45In determining a Motion to Dismiss, the Tribunal must use the relevant legislation at its disposal. In this matter, the Tribunal will apply s. 34(25) of the Planning Act in determining whether the Applicant’s motion should be granted. Section 34(25) states:
34(25) Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and subsection (24), the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if any of the following apply:
- The Tribunal is of the opinion that,
i. The reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal,
ii. The appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious,
iii. The appeal is made only for the purpose of delay, or
iv. The Appellant has persistently and without reasonable grounds commenced before the Tribunal proceedings that constitute an abuse of process.
The Appellant has not provided written reasons for the appeal.
The Appellant intends to argue a matter mentioned in subsection (19.0.1) but has not provided the explanations required by that subsection.
The Appellant has not paid the fee charged by the Tribunal.
The Appellant has not responded to a request by the Tribunal for further information within the time specified by the Tribunal. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 12, s. 6 (8); 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, s. 80 (1).
46The Tribunal notes that the grounds listed in s. 34(25) are disjunctive in nature, meaning that the Applicant needs only to demonstrate that one of the grounds listed above has been met in order for a dismissal to occur.
47It must be noted that since the entry into force of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act in 2021, the Tribunal has been empowered to use s. 19(1)(c) which allows the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal if the Tribunal is “of the opinion that the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success”.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE MOTION TO DISMISS
48The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence before it, including the submissions of the Applicant, the response that was received from the City and the response received by the Appellant.
49As per Rule 1.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is the obligation of the Tribunal to interpret its rules in order to offer the best opportunity for a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution to the matter before it. The Tribunal is aware of the gravity of the Motion before it and that the motion must be decided with the utmost care and diligence.
50It is a well-established principle that, on a Motion to Dismiss appeal, the Tribunal may look beyond the written reasons in the Appeal to determine whether genuine, authentic, and legitimate planning issues to be adjudicated, and that the Notice of Appeal should not be interpreted in an overly technical manner.
51The Response materials state that the Appellants intend to use evidence in the Calhoun Heritage Planning report of 2016 and the City’s “Infill Study” of 2022 along with cross examination of the Applicant’s witnesses. Mr. Colauti also intends to call the Appellants themselves as witnesses to provide context to the Tribunal.
52The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellants have demonstrated their intention to bring what they consider legitimate land planning issues to the merits hearing.
53The Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellants have the intention to bring contrary land planning evidence to the Applicant’s case through cross examination of the Appellant’s witnesses.
54The Tribunal rules that the Appellant has not met any of the tests of s. 34(25) of the Planning Act and the Appeal by the Appellant should continue at this time. The Tribunal rules that the Appellant has not met the criteria under s. 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act at this time.
55The Tribunal notes that through its determination of accepting of the response of the Appellant for this Motion, the Applicant has not had an opportunity to submit a reply as is set out procedures for the hearing of a Motion. The Tribunal notes that it did ask if the Applicant wanted to submit a reply, the Appellant responded and declined to submit a reply on its motion.
56The Tribunal finds that the Motion to Dismiss should be denied and that the continuation of the Case Management Conference should occur at the earliest possible date in order to expeditiously set out a Hearing of the Merits in this matter.
ORDER
57THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion is denied.
“s. deBoer”
s. deboer
MEMBER
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.