Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 12, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004889
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 17.
Appellant: James Taaffe
Subject: DC BL 2022-154
Description: New Township of Southgate Development Charges By-law
Property Address: Township Wide
Municipality: Township of Southgate
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004889
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004889
OLT Case Name: Taaffe v. Southgate (Township)
Heard: May 8, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| James Taaffe (Appellant) | Self-Represented |
| Township of Southgate | Robert K. Brown |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ROBERT G. ACKERMAN ON MAY 8, 2023 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link To Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Appellant, James Taaffe, has appealed the Passage of the Development Charges By-law No. 2022-154 (the “DC By-law”), by the Council for the Township of Southgate (“the Township”) on October 5, 2022. This Appeal is brought pursuant to Section 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27 (“the Act”). The Appellant is self-represented. He has made a number of Objections to the DC By-law in the voluminous materials he has filed in support of the Appeal. The Tribunal summarizes the Grounds of Appeal as follows:
a) The 2022 Development Charges Background Study (“DC Study”) prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (the “Watson Firm”), is deficient as the amounts are calculated incorrectly;
b) The Watson Firm was negligent when preparing the DC Study;
c) The residential value for storm drainage is too low;
d) The Township’s drainage works are not operating legally;
e) The drainage capital asset accounting is in contravention of O.Reg 395/11 under the Financial Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.12;
f) There has been the illegal destruction and divestment of drainage works;
g) There has been a failure to follow section 1(4) of O.Reg. 395/11;
h) There has been fraud;
i) The Public Works manager has not undertaken any assessment of drainage works;
j) Conflict of interest – a Councilor who is a local developer voted in favour of the DC By-law.
THE HEARING
2The Appellant, James Taaffe appeared on his own behalf and Robert Brown, Counsel, appeared for the Township. Mr. Brown produced and filed on consent, a Document Book for the Appeal which was marked as Exhibit 1. The Parties agreed that Exhibit 1 contained all the documents which may be relevant to the issues in the Appeal as follows:
- Notice of Appeal, dated October 26, 2022;
- Notice of the Passing of Development Charges By-Law;
- Explanatory Note that the DC By-law was approved to fund capital costs due to growth;
- List of persons notified of the Hearing: the Appellant, the Township’s Clerk and Mr. Brown;
- Township of Southgate By-Law No. 2022-154;
- Map of Southgate Township;
- Affidavit of Lindsey Green, Clerk, sworn December 19, 2002, that the public meeting requirements and the Notice of Passing requirements of the Act have been satisfied;
- Notice of Public Meeting on September 28, 2022, pursuant to Section 12 of the Act;
- Minutes of Public Information Meeting on September 28, 2022, regarding the proposed DC By-law;
- 2022 Development Charges Background Study prepared by Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.;
- Submissions filed with the Township by the Appellant related to the DC By-law comprised of emails to Mr. Brown, the Mayor, Council members, the Clerk and Treasurer regarding the DC By-law and a “Notice” to Southgate Council and the Township’s Auditors alleging fraud by Township Staff;
- The Pleadings in two Superior Court actions for damages which the Appellant has brought against the Township, its Chief Building Official, and its Chief Administrative Officer as follows: a. Statement of Claim, in action CV-22-47-0000, April 19, 2022; b. Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, May 19, 2022; c. Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, June 7, 2022; d. Statement of Claim, in action CV-22-70-0000, May 30, 2022; e. Amended Statement of Claim, CV-22-70-0000, July 26, 2022.
3Prior to this Hearing, the Appellant filed a Factum which consolidates and reduces the ten Grounds of Appeal listed in paragraph 1 to five Grounds, as follows:
Ground No. 1 — A Deficient Background Study
4The Appellant alleges that Township’s Council relied upon a deficient DC Study as the basis for its decision to pass the DC By-law. The Appellant maintains that the DC Study ignored the “huge looming costs” of upgrading the Township’s storm sewer system, which he described as “a patchwork network of pipes which the Township does own, and which is connected by a network of private ditches and swales which the Township does not own”. The Appellant submits that the network of private ditches and swales must be acquired by the Township by means of contract, license, lease or expropriation and that the DC By-law fails to budget for these acquisitions.
Ground No. 2 — Alleged Bad Faith by a Council Member who benefited from passage of the DC By-law
5The Appellant alleges that a Member of Council (Brian Milne) was in an undeclared conflict of interest when he voted for the DC By-law as he is a developer who derived a direct benefit from the reduced Development Charges in the DC By-law. The Tribunal notes that Section 3.2 of the DC By-law provides that it “applies to all lands in the Township of Southgate” and not to a particular property.
Ground No. 3 — Alleged Bias and Conflict of interest by Chief Administrative Officer
6The Appellant alleges that the Township’s Chief Administrative Officer (“CAO”) used his position to carry-out a personal vendetta against the Appellant in connection with a dispute concerning a site plan. In 2022 the Appellant brought an action in the Superior Court of Justice at Owen Sound under Court File No. CV-22-00000047-00 against the Township, its Chief Building Official and Public Works Manager, alleging that water flowing through a municipal drainage easement had damaged a deck attached to the Appellant’s home. The Appellant has also brought an action against the CAO in the Superior Court of Justice at Owen Sound under Court file No. CV-22-70-0000, seeking damages resulting from the alleged actions of the CAO which caused harm to the Appellant.
Ground No. 4 — The DC By-law was passed in bad faith as the ability of the Township to operate will be impaired
7The Appellant maintains that the DC By-law set the Development Charges at too low a rate, which will result in the Township taking on debt which will impair the Township’s ability to operate.
Ground No. 5 — Township has failed to maintain and/or repair its storm sewer system
8The Appellant alleges that the Township is acting in a wanton and reckless fashion by neglecting to maintain and repair its storm sewer system and refers to the findings of the Walkerton Inquiry.
WITHDRAWAL OF GROUNDS NO. 3, 4 AND 5
9At the commencement of the hearing, Counsel for the Township, Mr. Brown, submitted that Grounds No.3, 4 and 5, being based upon allegations of conflict of interest, bad faith and negligence, are not appropriate Objections under the Act and concern matters which are outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Appellant advised the Tribunal that he understood and agreed with Mr. Brown’s submission, and that he was therefore withdrawing Grounds No. 3, 4 and 5.
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 AND FINDINGS
10With respect to Ground No. 1, no admissible evidence was filed or produced by the Appellant in support of his Objection. A Report or Expert Opinion addressing the alleged deficiencies in the DC Study was not filed by the Appellant, neither was an Expert Witness produced. When the Tribunal inquired respecting the Appellant’s evidence in support of this Ground the Appellant indicated that he was knowledgeable in financial reporting and intended to provide the Tribunal with his observations and opinions regarding the deficiencies in the DC Study. The Appellant confirmed that he had not engaged an accountant, economist, or other financial expert to review the DC Study and to provide a Report detailing its alleged deficiencies. The Appellant also confirmed that he was not an economist or an accountant. Mr. Brown submitted that as the Appellant would not be producing the evidence of a qualified expert and was not one himself, he would be testifying as a lay witness, and as such would not be entitled to give opinion evidence, but would be limited to testifying with respect to matters of his personal observation only and not concerning the inferences to be drawn from those observations. The Tribunal agrees. This Objection requires expert evidence to establish that there were material deficiencies in the DC Study. As the Appellant concedes that he has no such evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has failed to bring any evidence in support of this Ground of Appeal and is of the opinion that this Objection is therefore insufficient.
11The Tribunal notes that Development Charges are not intended to benefit the existing community, but are a one-time charge intended to pay for a municipality’s increased capital costs occasioned by the expansion of services in consequence of development, and are not intended to fund the correction of existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure as argued by the Appellant.
12With respect to Ground No. 2, no evidence was produced by the Appellant to support the allegation that the Councilor acted in a conflict of interest by voting for the DC By-law. The Superior Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction in all proceedings involving alleged municipal conflicts of interest, and the Tribunal is therefore without jurisdiction to consider this Objection. Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is not properly before the Tribunal.
ORDER
12The Tribunal therefore Orders that this Appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed, and that the Development Charges By-law No. 2022-154 remains in full force and effect.
“Robert G. Ackerman”
ROBERT G. ACKERMAN
MEMBER
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.