Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 28, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000075
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Ahmed Group (1000 Dundas St. E.) Inc. and Ahmed Group (1024 Dundas St. E.) Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the redevelopment of the property for a 4 storey, 16 storey and 20 storey mixed use building with at grade commercial use
Reference Number:
OZ/OPA 22-18 W1
Property Address:
1000 and 1024 Dundas Street East
Municipality/UT:
City of Mississauga/Region of Peel
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000075
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000075
OLT Case Name:
Ahmed Developments Inc. et al. v. Mississauga (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the redevelopment of the property for a 4 storey, 16 storey and 20 storey mixed use building with at grade commercial use
Reference Number:
OZ/OPA 22-18 W1
Property Address:
1000 and 1024 Dundas Street East
Municipality/UT:
City of Mississauga /Region of Peel
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000076
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000075
Heard:
July 14, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Ahmed Developments Inc. et al.
Peter Gross Jessica Chen
City of Mississauga
Michael Minkowski Quinto Annibale Mark Joblin
Mother Parkers Tea and Coffee Inc.
David Tang Jesse White
Dundas Landowners’ Association
Max Laskin
Region of Peel
Brett Baker Rachel Godley (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to appeals brought pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA”) for the property municipally addressed as 1000-1024 Dundas Street East (“Subject Properties”) located in the City of Mississauga (“City”), for the failure of council to adopt or to make a decision within the legislated timeframe.
2The purpose of the OPA and ZBA are to permit the redevelopment of a 4 storey, 16 storey, and 20 storey mixed use building with at grade commercial uses, 543 purpose – built rental apartments, and a gross floor area of 37,817 square metres (“m2”).
3The OPA proposes to amend the City of Mississauga’s Official Plan (“MOP”) by redesignating the Subject Properties from Employment Area, Dixie Employment Area, and Mixed use to Neighbourhood, Applewood Neighbourhood, and Residential High Density.
4The ZBA proposes to amend the City’s ZBL No. 0255-2007 by changing the zoning designations of the Subject Properties from General Commercial Exception Zone C3-65 and General Commercial Exception Zone C3-66 to a site-specific Residential Apartment Exception (RA5-XX) Zone.
PARTICIPANT or PARTY STATUS REQUEST
5In response to the Notice, the Tribunal did not receive further Participant or Party Status requests.
HEARING
6David Tang, counsel for Mother Parkers Tea and Coffee Inc. (“Mother Parkers”) provided background to the current status of the appeals. He advised there have been continued discussions with Paul Gross, counsel for the Applicant/ Appellant, however there are still three outstanding issues for the Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) and Issues List (“IL”) to be finalized.
7Mr. Gross advised that he provided the Tribunal with a DPO and IL on July 10, 2023 and confirmed three issues have not been agreed upon by only the Applicant/ Appellant and Mother Parkers. The other Parties to the proceeding, specifically the City, Dundas Landowners Association and the Region all were satisfied with the DPO and IL and had no comments for the three issues between the Applicant/Appellant and Mother Parkers.
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
8Mr. Tang quoted the wording of issue #33 of the IL;
“Can, and if it can, should the Tribunal designate as Class 4, the lands known municipally as: 1000 & 1024 Dundas St. E.? PPS 2020, Policy 1.2.6.1; NPC-300; Mississauga OP, Policies 10.3.5, 6.10.1.6.”
9Mr. Tang submits the issue as written, oversteps the Tribunal jurisdiction. Mr. Tang asserts that the words following “Can” in the first sentence specifically, “and if it can” should be removed and the word “should” is the proper reading of the intention of the Parties.
10Mr. Gross submits that the words “if it can” should remain, as the Tribunal has discretion under the OPA and ZBLA to designate.
11The Tribunal finds the words “if it can” be removed which would keep within the Tribunal’s jurisdictional limits on designation.
12Mr. Tang submitted that issues 30 and 32 within the IL in regard to what mitigation is required by Mother Parker’s today in order for the Mother Parker’s facilities to operate in compliance with provincial legislation (issue 30) and whether Mother Parkers have a pre-existing obligation to demonstrate compliance with the applicable exclusion limits by implementing additional noise mitigation measures at its facilities (issue 32) are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Whereas Mr. Gross submits the Tribunal has jurisdiction under the OPA and ZBLA to determine these two issues.
13The two Parties suggested that they can continue to work on the wording of the two issues and therefore, the Tribunal requested that both Parties continue discussion towards a resolution of these issues and on consent provided a deadline by Friday July 21, 2023 to try and resolve them.
14The Tribunal has since received the Final Draft of the PO including the IL. The Final PO as approved by the Tribunal is appended to this Order as Attachment 1.
15Michael Minkowski, counsel for the City, requested that Quinto Annibale now be counsel on record for these proceedings. Mr. Annibale advised that his co-counsel is Mark Joblin and any further correspondence be directed to them. Mr. Minkowski also added that the City as noted in the first CMC, are not available for the November hearings. Therefore, at the expense of the City, the City has had to provide outside counsel (Mr. Annibale). Mr. Minkowski advised the City had various options for the issue of the Tribunal setting the hearing in November which included appeal of the Tribunal’s decision or a Rule 25 review of the decision or as noted in the first CMC bring a motion to adjourn the hearing in November. However, the City decided to “deconflict” this situation. Mr. Minkowski asserted it was only a procedural fairness issue as the City was not available for a hearing for the rest of 2023 and was no way impeding or delaying the proceedings and provided recent case law to substantiate his submission.
16The Tribunal explained that setting hearings was sometimes a “Balancing Act” ensuring procedural fairness between the Parties and not being prejudicial to any Party when setting hearing dates, and in this case the Tribunal relied on the Ontario Tribunal Act, subsection 12(2) for a fair, just and expeditious resolution. In any event, the Tribunal recognizes the City’s cooperation in obtaining outside counsel for the expeditious resolution of this matter and acknowledges the City is sincere in not trying to impede or delay the proceedings.
MEDIATION
17The Parties were advised that Tribunal-led mediation was available and that they are aware that they may request this mediation at their convenience.
18No further notice will be given.
ORDER
19The Member is not seized (the Member was previously seized of this matter) but may be spoken to related to case management.
20The directions in this Decision are so ordered.
“Eric S. Crowe”
ERIC S. CROWE
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.
ATTACHMENT 1