Cheevers v. Brantford (City), 2023 CanLII 61506

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 06, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004685

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Susan Cheevers

Applicant: 2209509 Ontario Inc.

Subject: By-law No. 136-2022

Description: To permit the development of a six-storey mixed-use building with fifty (50) condominium units, 182 sq. m of commercial space and 43 parking spaces

Reference Number: PZ-07-21

Property Address: 381-393 Colborne Street

Municipality/UT: City of Brantford

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004685

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004685

OLT Case Name: Cheevers v. Brantford (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(25)(1)(i) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Request by: 2209509 Ontario Inc.

Request for: Request for Dismissal Without a Hearing

Heard: April 3, 2023 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
2209509 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”)	Derek Sinko*
Susan Cheevers (“Appellant”)	Self-Represented

Link to Order

DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This Decision decides the motion brought by the Applicant to dismiss the Appellant’s Appeal brought under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act (the “Motion”).

2The Applicant previously advanced proposals for development of lands located at 381-393 Colborne Street (“Subject Lands”) in 2010 which did not proceed. The Applicant eventually revised its proposal and submitted an application to the City of Brantford for an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit redevelopment for a six-storey mixed-use building with 50 dwelling units, commercial space and parking on the Subject Lands (“Development”). The City approved the application and amending Zoning By-law No. 136-2022 (“ZBLA”) was passed by City Council on September 20, 2022, which was supported by City staff.

3The Appellant had appeared at the public meeting to express concerns regarding the proposed development and appealed the decision of Council on October 13, 2022 to the Tribunal. Ms. Cheevers resides immediately to the rear of the proposed Development.

4A hearing of the Appeal was scheduled to commence on April 24, 2023, but in the interim, this written Motion was brought before the Tribunal, and the hearing was accordingly adjourned to await this Decision on the Applicant’s Motion.

THE MOTION MATERIALS, RELIEF SOUGHT

5When the Applicant’s Notice of Motion was served and filed, and the Response was received, this Panel Member determined that neither the Applicant, nor the Appellant, had filed any affidavit evidence in support of their respective positions in the Motion, as is mandatory under Rules 10.4 and 10.6. As a result of this lack of compliance on the part of both Parties the Tribunal did not have a properly constituted Motion before it. Rather than dismiss the Motion and require the Parties to begin again, the Tribunal exercised its discretion, stood down the adjudication of the Motion and provided Directives in accordance with s. 9(1) and s. 12 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act to provide the requisite materials, failing which the Motion would be dismissed.

6The Motion materials were refiled by the Parties, and the Tribunal now has before it the following:

(a) The Applicant’s Notice of Motion (undated) supported by the Affidavit of Odete Gomes dated April 20, 2023, with ten exhibits (A to J) and Ms. Gomes’ Resume and her completed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty;

(b) A copy of a Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board in file V930280 issued on October 12, 1994, also filed by the Applicant;

(c) The Appellant’s original Response to the Applicant’s Motion for an Order Dismissing Appeal Without Hearing dated March 27, 2023, and the Response to Amended Notice of Motion being the Affidavit of Susan Cheevers sworn May 1, 2023, together with the five Exhibits originally filed and a copy of the Heritage Impact Statement for another property located at 446-450 Colborne Street, dated September 20, 2021;

(d) The Applicant’s Reply (undated) to the Appellant’s original Response to the Applicant’s Motion.

7The Applicant seeks an Order dismissing the Appeal pursuant to section 34(25)(1)(i) of the Planning Act upon the grounds that the reasons 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, and alternatively, that the Appeal deals with matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

8The Affidavit of Ms. Gomes provides a comprehensive overview of the planning justification report and the multitude of reports, studies and assessments undertaken by the Applicant in support of the proposed development which led to the approval of the ZBLA. The planning evidence now provided to the Tribunal responds to those matters raised in the Notice of Appeal, as supplemented by the Appellant’s Response.

THE APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RESPONSE

9Any Motion to Dismiss an Appeal requires the Tribunal to first examine the Notice of Appeal to understand the grounds upon which the Appeal has been brought. Additionally, evidence and material filed by the Appellant in response to the Motion may also be considered, as it expands upon grounds already contained within the Notice of Appeal. The Tribunal will not however readily consider additional grounds of, or reasons for, the appeal contained in the response to the Motion to Dismiss that were not contained within the original Notice of Appeal.

10In this case the Tribunal has carefully reviewed the Notice of Appeal, which is inclusive of the Appellant’s original written comments submitted to Council prior to the meeting enacting the ZBLA, and excerpts of various documents and reports which the Appellant asserts substantiate the basis for the Appeal. The Response materials on this Motion do not effectively seek to add any grounds.

11The determination of this Motion is ultimately a focused and hard look by the Tribunal at the grounds and reasons in the Notice of Appeal. For the purposes of this Motion the Tribunal finds it necessary to first provide a fulsome summary of the primary grounds and reasons for the Appeal. They are summarized as follows:

(a) More Information Is Required: The Appellant indicates that her appeal was brought because of her perception that there was a lack of explanation and factual underpinnings on the part of the experts in their opinions and conclusions provided to support the application, and that serious concerns existed that were not addressed;

(b) Contamination of the Subject Lands Ignored: The Appellant asks that a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Study be done in order to have a “remediation expert” identify and fix the contaminated site. The Appellant references a 2010 Phase 1 and Phase 2 assessment, and the findings at that time, expresses concerns regarding the expense of removing contaminated soils, and notes that it is “common knowledge that a serious problem with contamination was identified over a significant part of this neighbourhood.” The Notice of Appeal includes excerpted pages from Planning Justification Reports and other documents relating to the Application in 2010 with sections circled, some vigorously, highlighted, with an asterisk and an editorial comment pointing to speculation as to where the contamination is coming from. The Appellant, in her Appeal, makes reference to “a law suit” that was instituted regarding boundaries of contamination related to another site distant from the Subject Lands. With such potential concern the Appellant asks why this issue of contamination has become a “non issue” and no experts have come forward to address the issue and permit the removal of an “H” designation. The question is asked “Were the original studies adequate to anticipate disturbing soils at that depth?”, where “that depth” refers to the depth required to accommodate the underground parking in the Development.

The question is asked in the Appeal: “How does the municipality justify no further studies of the problem and no further discussions of solutions?” With these questions the Appellant asserts that this has the appearance of “burying a significant problem” and provides her personal opinions as to the sufficiency of the Municipality’s considerations of these contamination issues and that it should not be driven by “the developers bottom line” and “full and proper testing” and completion of remedial work is planned.

These concerns and questions in the Notice of Appeal material are expanded upon in the Appellant’s Affidavit, referencing specifics as to a Class Action Lawsuit, portions of an environmental assessment report from 2010, and the Planning Justification Report. The Appellant submits that this material supports the Appeal as it “only confirms that the municipality is completely ignorant of the environmental issues pertaining to these lands.”

(c) Heritage Considerations Ignored: The Appellant is asking that a Heritage Impact Study be done “to protect the integrity of the neighbourhood which consists of mostly single-family homes.” The Appellant refers again to the 2010 application and that there was then a concern over the heritage area, and yet no heritage report has been provided for the Development. The Appellant asserts that the Heritage Committee was asking for amendments to the height of the proposed building.

These referenced concerns about “heritage” are expanded upon in the Appellant’s affidavit, wherein Ms. Cheevers states that the Subject Lands are listed on the City’s Heritage Inventory, the Development is within close proximity to some 55 properties listed on the City’s Heritage Inventory, Alexandra Park across the street, in which the Alexandra Park Cannon, circa 1860, is located, and three churches of historical significance. This supports the Appellant’s Appeal that indicates that the municipal staff and Ms. Gomes are errant in deciding that this proposal apparently does not merit a full heritage impact assessment.

(d) Lack of Shadow Study relating to Alexandra Park and Neighbouring Residents: The Notice of Appeal identifies the green space (Alexandra Park) across the road from the Development and asserts that “no consideration has been given to the impact of the development on that greenspace, in particular possible shadowing of the greenspace by a six story (sic) development.”

The Appellant, in the Affidavit in this Motion, is of the view that the shadow study that was done fails to address the impact upon Alexandra Park, which is the “primary amenity space for occupants of neighbouring apartments and seniors home within the urban core.”

(e) Lack of Consideration to Parking and Traffic Problems: The Notice of Appeal expresses concerns regarding deficiencies in planning justification as to potential problems with on-street parking arising from the development. Reference is again made to 2010 and that the approval of this Development “contradicts the parking problem and solutions from 2010.” Upon those prior concerns as to traffic flows requiring traffic signals, the Appellant “can only guess that adding fifty apartments and the car traffic that goes hand in hand with that will exacerbate that problem.”

In her Affidavit, the Appellant posits that she is more than qualified to make observations regarding parking in the area. The Appellant references another nearby development and parking requirements in that instance and indicates that “she is unable to reconcile how the parking requirements of two projects in such close proximity to one another can be so varied.”

(f) Incompatibility with the adjacent Neighbourhood – Density – Height – Nuisances of noise, odors, overlook, shadow: The Notice of Appeal makes brief assertions regarding the proposed density of the Development exceeding that which the lot and the neighbourhood are capable of accommodating and represents over development. The Appellant’s position is that given the scale of the proposal and the location and the character of the neighbourhood as a whole, the proposed development is too high at six storeys and asks: “If 4 stories (sic) were considered too high for this neighbourhood in 2010, how do they justify 6 stories (sic) in 2022 in the same area.”

The Appellant indicates that Developers must take into account the surrounding neighbourhood and the impact it will have on the character of the neighbourhood. The Appellant states: “Constructing a six story (sic) building will tower over everything else surrounding the park and residences does not constitute good planning and does not recognize the character of our neighbourhood”. She also states that she “respectfully suggests that this development does not exceed three stories (sic).”

(g) Excessive Number of Variances in ZBLA To Permit the Development: The Appellant submits that given the extensive nature of the variances from the zoning requirements, “common sense” dictates that those who believe that these variances are appropriate should come forward to provide further explanation for their position.

12With respect to the Notice of Appeal, the Appellant has, as reasons for the Appeal, also checked off the boxes in the Appeal Form that effectively then make the statements that the ZBLA and Development are inconsistent with the Provincial Policy, fail to conform with a Provincial Plan and fail to conform with an applicable Official Plan. The content of the Notice of Appeal, mostly contained within the attachments, make no references, in any form, to consistency or conformity with provincial policy or applicable plans. Neither does the Notice of Appeal contain any direct references to policies within the City’s Official Plan or the substance of any lack of conformity to correlate with the “ticked box statements.”

13Finally, it is noted that the Appellant, in her Notice of Appeal, and her Response material, has provided no indication of witnesses, including expert witnesses, or what evidence might be put forward at the hearing of the Appeal.

THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS

14The statutory basis for this Motion, and the basis upon which the Tribunal may dismiss this Appeal without a hearing, are contained in s. 34(25) of the Planning Act. The consideration and application of that subsection was considered by the Tribunal in the often-cited decision of the former Board, Toronto (City) v. East Beach Community Assn, 1996 CarswellOnt 5740 (“East Beach”) and that decision, as subsequently referred to in most motions of this nature, is always the starting point for any motion to dismiss. Although it has not been cited by the Applicant in this Motion, it nevertheless remains the seminal decision guiding the Tribunal in any Motion to Dismiss such as this.

15The relevant portion of s. 34(25)1 of the Planning Act, setting out the singular ground relied upon by the Applicant, is as follows:

Dismissal without hearing

(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:

1. 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;

16The Applicant has included in its Motion the additional pleading that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the subject matter of the Appeal. No authority or argument have been provided to support this basis for the Motion. The Tribunal can summarily address this additional basis for the Motion. The Tribunal finds that on a prima facie basis there is nothing contained within the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal over which it would not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Appeal. It remains only to determine whether the Appeal should be dismissed under s. 34(25)1(i) of the Planning Act.

17The former Board, in East Beach, set out the required approach to a consideration of whether the grounds have been met and provided the following guidance on a Motion to Dismiss relating to the first of the grounds under s. 34(25):

(a) A cautionary but balanced approach is to be used. Care must be taken to ensure that the Tribunal does not take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily, and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case and the Tribunal must not make hasty conclusions as to the merits of an issue. Neither should an appellant be required to “draft the appeal with punctilious care and arm itself with ironclad reason for fear of being struck down.”

(b) It is not sufficient that planning language has been deployed in the Notice of Appeal by the Appellant. The Tribunal is entitled to look beyond the wording to examine the reasons stated to see whether they constitute “genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons.”

(c) The Tribunal must seek out: (1) whether there is authenticity in the reasons stated; (2) whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing; and (3) whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process.

(d) Raising apprehensions relating to land use planning grounds is insufficient and raising concerns about such matters in the hope that real substantive issues will emerge at the hearing is not indicative of an appeal that truly indicates land use planning grounds that could allow all or part of an appeal.

(e) The Tribunal may consider an identifiable issue that experts or decision makers may have “glossed over” if it is persuaded that the overlooked issue would make a difference upon impact to the community or raise a real planning concern.

18It is important to add that the focus of the Tribunal in a Motion to Dismiss is not to determine the relative merits of the appeal, or the application, nor decide any aspect of the subject matter of the Appeal. Instead, the Tribunal must examine, as the statutes require, whether the Appellant’s grounds for appeal contain apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal.

19A final comment should be provided as to the legal basis for the Tribunal’s determination of this Motion, as addressed by the Applicant in this Motion. The Tribunal has considered the decisions of the Tribunal cited by the Applicant in the Reply and the comments therein regarding the Tribunal’s mandate and jurisdiction. This Panel Member is coincidentally well-familiar with the Decisions cited. They have no applications as they relate to the Planning Act and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act as they were under Bill 139 and before the legislation underwent significant revisions through Bill 108. Those changes resulted in the limited two-part appeal considerations of conformity and consistency being repealed and the Tribunal returned to the conduct of a hearing de novo on appeals as they had before Bill 139 amended the manner in which the Tribunal considered and decided appeals under the Planning Act. These cases, and the Applicant’s brief submissions in the Reply in this respect, are accordingly of no assistance to the Tribunal in this Motion.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

20The Tribunal has reviewed the Affidavit evidence of Ms. Gomes. Based upon her qualifications, experience, education, certification, and her previous qualification as an expert in matters before the Tribunal, and its predecessors, the Tribunal qualifies Ms. Gomes to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning for the purposes of this Motion.

21The Tribunal has carefully reviewed the various reports and supporting documents that formed a part of the Application before the Tribunal within the Applicant’s Motion materials, as well as the documentation appended to the Appellant’s materials.

22The Tribunal is appreciative that the Appeal brought forward by Ms. Cheevers is advanced with genuine concern as to the ZBLA enacted by City Council to enable the proposed Development, particularly given her proximity to the Development. The Appellant’s extensive concerns regarding the sufficiency of the application material considered by Planning staff and by Council have been rigorously considered, as have the many unanswered questions and forthright apprehensions expressed by her as to what has happened since 2010, and the impacts the Development will have upon her and the neighbourhood. All of this is based solely upon her observations, opinions, conjecture and assumptions as a nearby resident concerned about the change that will occur in her neighbourhood.

23It is the Tribunal’s conclusion that none of these concerns, unanswered questions, perceptions and apprehensions are disingenuous. That however is not the factual and legal determination that must be made.

24The Tribunal is always cautious in a Motion to Dismiss because, as noted in East Beach, taking away the right of an Appellant to a hearing on its merits is not something to be done lightly. In applying s. 34(25) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal must carefully consider whether an appeal is based upon authentic and genuine reasons that raise issues which, when decided, could allow the Tribunal to allow all or part of the appeal. The Tribunal, in this exercise looks carefully to the expected probative means that will be used by the Appellant – the evidentiary basis to be advanced – to support these reasons and grounds and advance these issues.

25Upon a review of all of the evidence presented in this Motion the Tribunal finds that the Motion should be granted, and the Appellant’s Appeal should be dismissed for the following reasons:

(a) As a preliminary observation, asking for more information regarding a prior decision of Council approving a zoning by-law amendment, or any other planning application, will not, in and of itself, constitute a legitimate, authentic or genuine planning grounds for an appeal. The grounds of an appeal must raise issues to be decided by the Tribunal. It is not a vehicle for the public to secure information to satisfy their planning concerns. The Planning Act provides for extensive and effective public consultation processes in many forms, which is how residents obtain information and have their questions answered in planning and development matters.

(b) Much of the Appellant’s Appeal merely raises apprehensions and advances general concerns relating to those matters identified in this Decision, much of it based upon personal observations and concerns about a Development that will be behind her back yard. As the Tribunal has explained before in appeals from local residents which are unsupported by clear and precise land use planning grounds: it is insufficient to raise concerns and ask questions about such matters in the hope that real substantive issues will emerge at the hearing. This is not indicative of an appeal that truly puts forward land use planning grounds that could allow all or part of an appeal. The Tribunal finds that a substantial portion of the apprehensions and concerns fail to meet the threshold test in s. 34(25)(1)(i) – they do not disclose that which is necessary to allow this Appeal to continue to move forward.

(c) Asking questions in an Appeal may not necessarily represent improper reasons or grounds in some cases, but they often are of little practical assistance in identifying, with precision, genuine planning grounds. This is particularly so when the questions asked are whether Council properly considered information and answered the questions that remained unanswered for the Appellant. That is misdirected because an Appeal before the Tribunal is not focused upon what Council failed to consider or answering general questions posed by the Appellant. It is focused upon clear identified planning grounds directly related to municipal or provincial planning policies that will be considered anew upon fresh evidence at a hearing of the merits. It is the finding of the Tribunal that the many questions advanced by the Appellant in regard to the Municipality’s considerations, do not satisfy the requirements of an Appeal.

(d) The Tribunal also finds that much of the Appeal is grounded in comparisons with the application relating to the Subject Lands dating back some 13 years. While background and historical information is sometimes relevant to the consideration of planning issues in an Appeal under s. 34(19), the focus is upon the current proposed development and planning instrument. The focus is not what came before it, nor is a prior application that is different from the eventual application or zoning by-law amendment that is now the subject of the Appeal, of assistance.

(e) The Tribunal also finds that a number of assertions and conjecture about what happened in 2010 are not supportable given clear and precise information included in the reports and studies that were before Council in the new application. This applies, for example, with respect to the Appellant’s generalized concerns about contamination and traffic. Furthermore, general assumptions that a current application could not possibly have addressed matters of concern that were similarly raised in a different application 13 years before, is a tenuous position to take in a planning matter. Context changes and planning policies evolve and change. Such changes greatly impact planning considerations, as Ms. Gomes’ planning evidence indicates. The City’s designation of the Subject Lands within an Intensification Corridor and part of the Strategic Growth Area (and with it an approved height of six storeys) and the Province’s current Provincial Policies prioritizing intensification and housing, as an example, represent planning policy that would remain relevant in a hearing. The Appellant has provided no genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons in her Appeal to address the current planning regime.

(f) Moreover, the Tribunal has carefully considered the unchallenged planning evidence provided by Ms. Gomes and finds that the extensive reports, studies, planning assessments, technical investigations do in fact answer, and respond directly to, many of the questions asked, and address the purported insufficiency of validating information, put forward by the Appellant. General expressed concerns about shadowing, are more than sufficiently addressed in the shadow studies. Very broad and speculative assumptions about contamination have been directly considered and addressed in the planning material. Traffic studies address the very apprehensions formed by the Appellant frankly based only upon her personal observations. The evidence provided by the Appellant in this Motion, when viewed objectively, and as a whole, simply does not support the broadly expressed concerns and suppositions expressed about such things as traffic or contamination. Ultimately the Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated the completion of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental assessments that the Appellant demands be done. The Applicant has demonstrated steps that have been taken for the removal of contaminated material and the planned removal of further contaminated material, and further governance that will occur in the Site review process with respect to the planned remediation. Such remediation, and what contamination there is, has nothing to do with the Appellant’s identified but unrelated lawsuit relating to another environmental issue some considerable distance away and unrelated to this Development. Ambiguous references to what is “common knowledge” to support concerns about contamination are unhelpful and not genuine or authentic assertions. This aspect of the Appeal is tinged with a measure of inflammatory rhetoric and is as unhelpful as it is alarmist.

(g) There is no basis or merit to the grounds of appeal relating to heritage. The material provided by the Applicant more than adequately demonstrates that proper levels of consideration have been given to heritage under the legislation given the Subject Lands, and their context. The Appellant’s general observations about heritage concerns fail to identify any heritage-related planning issues of substance and do not warrant a hearing.

(h) The Appellant generally believes, using a chart format, that the number of variances approved in the ZBLA are excessive. The number of changes to a zoning by-law’s performance standards is not of relevance. It is whether the variances each, and collectively, represent good planning, and conform to the City’s OP, and to Provincial Policy. The Appellant has not identified any such legitimate land use planning grounds. The Appellant’s expressed view that common sense dictates that those who believe that these numerous variances are appropriate “should come forward to provide further explanation for their position”, does not represent a genuine, legitimate or authentic planning reason which would merit a hearing.

(i) Finally, as noted, the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal has checked boxes relating to central planning issues relating to conformity and consistency but has provided virtually nothing to support this. It is insufficient to “deploy” planning language by ticking these rather important boxes in the Tribunal’s Notice of Appeal and then provide nothing of substance to support such assertions of non-conformity or inconsistency with municipal and Provincial planning policy and plans. It also represents a failure to comply with s. (34)19.0.1 of the Planning Act. As well, the failure to adequately inform the Tribunal how evidence or a case will be presented is also detrimental to formulating genuine, legitimate and authentic planning grounds that will lead to issues that will be considered upon the merits of evidence within an adjudicative process.

26Based upon a diligent consideration of the detailed content of the Notice of Appeal and the Appellant’s Affidavit in support of her Response to the Motion, and for all of the reasons and analysis outlined above, the Tribunal finds that the reasons and grounds in this Appeal do not constitute legitimate and authentic planning reasons upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the Appeal.

27The Motion is therefore granted, and the Appeal is dismissed.

ORDER

28UPON APPEAL to this Tribunal by Susan Cheevers of a decision of the City of Brantford to approve Zoning By-law Amendment No. 136-2022;

29AND UPON WRITTEN MOTION to this Tribunal by 2209509 Ontario Inc. for an Order dismissing the appeal under subsection 34(25) of the Planning Act, and after considering and determining the Motion,

30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Motion is granted and the appeal by Susan Cheevers is dismissed.

“David L. Lanthier”

DAVID L. LANTHIER

VICE-CHAIR

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.