Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 13, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000363
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Appellant: Essence Holdings lnc.
Applicant: Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd. Zoning By-Law and Subdivision
Reference Number: OZS-2022-0021
Property Address: 0 and 8265 Churchville Road (North of Steeles Avenue West, east of Creditview Road)
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000363
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000363
OLT Case Name: Essence Holdings lnc. v Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval
Reference Number: OZS-2022-0021
Property Address: 0 and 8265 Churchville Road
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000364
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000363
Heard: August 2, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Essence Holdings Inc.
John Alati*
Grace O’Brien*
City of Brampton
Eugenia Bashura*
Steven Ross*
Jubin Abuwalla
Alex Ciccone*
Meetu Mahendra
Self-represented
Sukhwant Baidwan
Self-represented
Manesh Patel
Self-represented
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI ON AUGUST 2, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
1The Tribunal convened the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of an appeal filed pursuant to s. 34(11) and s. 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Essence Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) against the City of Brampton (“City”) for its failure to make a decision within the timeframe prescribed by the Act on applications (“Applications”) for approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for the property municipally known as 8265 Churchville Road (“Subject Property”).
2The purpose of the Applications is to facilitate the development of a subdivision for 30 single detached residential lots along with a natural heritage system block, a buffer block, a parkette, a residential reserve block intended to provide access to 8261 Walnut Road, and a new public road terminating in a cul-de-sac.
3The proposal was revised on March 2, 2023 to include the conversion of the public road to a condo road, revisions to the alignment of Walnut Road, revisions to the lot configuration with no lots fronting on Churchville Road, revisions to lot sizes, reduction in the density of the development, an increase in the number of lots to 35 and an increase in tree retention.
4The Subject Property is located along the northwest side of Churchville Road and has a total land area of approximately 3.32 hectares. The Subject Property includes an existing private road known as Walnut Road, which extends northwest from the intersection of Churchville Road and Honour Oak Crescent providing access to 8261 Walnut Road.
5The Subject Property is surrounded by low density residential development consisting primarily of large lot, single detached dwellings to the north, west and south, and a single detached subdivision to the northeast.
6The purpose of the CMC was to receive an update from the Parties, consider requests for Party or Participant status, investigate opportunities for mediation or settlement and set dates for any subsequent hearings.
NOTICE
7An Affidavit of Service, sworn by Keith Marshall and dated July 12, 2023, attesting to the giving of notice for this proceeding, was marked as Exhibit 1.
PARTY/PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
8In advance of the CMC, written requests for Party Status were received from:
Jubin Abuwalla
Meetu Mahendra
Sukhwant Baidwan
Naresh Kumar Jain, on behalf of Eldorado Mills Inc. (“Eldorado”), and
Manesh Patel.
9The Tribunal explained to the requestors the obligations of a Party and the alternate option of requesting Participant status.
10Alex Ciccone, counsel for Mr. Abuwalla, was present at the CMC and indicated Mr. Abuwalla’s property located at 8261 Walnut Road is accessed through the Subject Property via an access easement. Mr. Ciccone indicated that Mr. Abuwalla’s interest in the Applications is to ensure his access is maintained and that his six-acre lot is not sterilized. Mr. Ciccone indicated that Mr. Abuwalla has retained a land use planner for the hearing. Mr. Alati offered that the Appellant had no objection to Mr. Abuwalla being granted Party Status. Ms. Bashura indicated that the City had no position in this regard.
11Ms. Mahendra, a resident who owns property adjacent to the Subject Property, voiced concerns related to land use compatibility and the environment. She indicated that she had spoken to an environmental expert, who had yet to be retained. Mr. Alati offered that the Appellant had no objection to Ms. Mahendra being granted Party Status. Ms. Bashura indicated that the City had no position in this regard.
12Mr. Baidwan, a resident who owns property across from the Subject Property, voiced concerns related to land use compatibility, traffic and sustainability. He has retained a land use planner and intends to attend the hearing of the merits and, as a lawyer, intends to be self-represented and to cross-examine the Appellant’s witnesses. Mr. Alati offered that the Appellant had no objection to Mr. Baidwan being granted Party Status. Ms. Bashura indicated that the City had no position in this regard.
13Mr. Jain described Eldorado as an incorporated resident-based community group that has concerns related to traffic, compatibility, stormwater management, sustainability and the heritage building on the Subject Property. He advised the Tribunal that he would submit to the Tribunal and the Parties the Articles of Incorporation and a signed confirmation of authorization from Eldorado permitting him to represent the resident group. Mr. Jain advised the Tribunal that Eldorado is in the process of hiring a lawyer to represent them at the hearing. In light of the foregoing, the consideration of the request for Party Status for Eldorado was deferred to the next CMC.
14Mr. Patel, a resident who lives to the north of the Subject Property, raised concerns related to traffic, sustainability, stormwater management and the heritage building on the Subject Property. He indicated that he is exploring hiring expert witnesses and, depending on whether he determines that his issues would be duplicative of other Parties’ issues, he may wish to change his standing to that of a Participant. In this respect, Mr. Alati offered that the Appellant had no objection to Mr. Patel being granted Party Status on a provisional basis until the next CMC, wherein his status would be confirmed. Ms. Bashura indicated that the City had no position in this regard.
15Mr. Alati noted that, as discussed with counsel for the City, he would be adding a provision to the Procedural Order that if a Party’s witness list does not include an expert in the discipline of an issue identified on the Issues List, the issue would be struck.
16The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr. Abuwalla, Ms. Mahendra, Mr. Baidwan and Mr. Patel have genuine land use planning issues regarding the matter and, on the consent of the Appellant and the City, granted their requests for Party status, with the status request for Mr. Jain to be confirmed at the next CMC.
17The Tribunal was also in receipt of a submission from Jean Jamieson with a concern relating to the “harm of development in the valley land”. At the CMC, Ms. Jamieson voiced concerns related to the road widening required along Churchville Road, traffic and the environment, among other somewhat indistinct concerns. Ms. Jamieson did not articulate land use planning concerns directly related to the Applications and had not yet submitted a Party or Participant Status Request Form. Ms. Jamieson was advised to file a status request form with the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator and to all Parties ahead of the next CMC and ideally before August 16, 2023, being two weeks from the first CMC date, if she wished to request Party or Participant Status.
18The Tribunal was also in receipt of submissions, in the form of Affidavits, from Leroy Anthony and Balasubramanian Vishwanathan in opposition to the proposed development, citing concerns related to the environment, traffic, neighbourhood satisfaction, socioeconomic impacts and school capacity. Mr. Anthony and Mr. Vishwanathan were not in attendance at the CMC and no Party or Participant Status Request Forms were submitted.
19Since the CMC, the Tribunal received a Party Request Form from Mr. Vishwanathan, the consideration of which will be addressed at the second CMC. To date, no status request forms have been received from Mr. Anthony or Ms. Jamieson, although they have been advised to submit such ahead of the second CMC, if they wish to seek status.
20There were no additional requests for Party or Participant status.
NEXT STEPS
21The Tribunal engaged the Parties in a discussion about next steps which included expectations for a second CMC and details required for a Merit Hearing. Counsel for the Appellant indicated that his client would benefit from a second CMC in the fall of 2023. Counsel for the City indicated that she requires direction from Council before moving forward but that a fall CMC would be suitable.
22The Tribunal offered the potential for Tribunal-led mediation, although, with the Party Status of Eldorado outstanding and the expectation of the submission of status request forms from Ms. Jamieson, Mr. Anthony and Mr. Vishwanathan, it was considered premature at this time. There is the potential, however, for discussions between the Parties to identify issues, with the hope of scoping the issues ahead of the next CMC.
HEARING EVENTS
23The Tribunal directed that a second CMC be scheduled on Wednesday, October 25, 2023, at 10 a.m. by video hearing.
24The purpose of the second CMC will be to determine the status of all Parties and Participants, review a draft Procedural Order and Issues List and establish an agenda and date for the Merit Hearing.
25The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Wednesday, October 25, 2023, at 10 a.m.
26Statutory Parties and anyone seeking Party or Participant status are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Access code: 687-587-165
27Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
28Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373.The Access Code is as indicated above.
29Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
30The Tribunal grants Party Status to Jubin Abuwalla, Meetu Mahendra, Sukhwant Baidwan and Manesh Patel in this proceeding.
31The Tribunal orders that a second Case Management Conference will commence by video hearing on Wednesday, October 25, 2023, at 10 a.m.
32There will be no further notice.
33The Member is not seized of this matter.
“C. I. Molinari”
C. I. MOLINARI
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.