Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 20, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000582
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Sheila Martin
Subject: By-law No. 91-202
Description: 95-unit affordable rental residential development with support services
Reference Number: PL202300031
Property Address: 55 Croydon Street
Municipality/UT: Chatham-Kent / Chatham-Kent
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000582
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000582
OLT Case Name: Martin v. Chatham-Kent
Heard: September 14, 2023, by video
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Self-represented*
Sheila Martin (“Appellant”)
Self-represented
Municipality of Chatham-Kent (“Municipality”)
David Taylor*
Indwell Community Homes (“Applicant”)
Paula Lombardi*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by the Appellant, pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), against Zoning By-law 91-2023 (“ZBA”) adopted by the Municipality on May 17, 2023. The ZBA was to implement a proposal by the Applicant to redevelop a property known municipally as 55 Croydon Street in the Municipality (“Subject Property”). The Applicant intends to develop 95 “affordable” rental units with support services for tenants in two phases (“Proposed Development”). In Phase 1, 24 units (studio and one-bedroom), along with offices, amenities, and common spaces, would be developed in the former St-Agnes Catholic School. In Phase 2, an additional 71 units (one- and two-bedrooms) would be provided in a new three-storey addition. Mr. Taylor, Counsel for the Municipality, indicated that this Proposed Development is a priority project for the Municipality to address homelessness in the community.
2On September 14, 2023, the Tribunal held its first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to organize the appeals, address status requests and establish next steps in this proceeding.
3The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service of Notice of the CMC sworn on July 20, 2023, which was marked as Exhibit 1. On September 11, 2023, the Tribunal sent an administrative email to the Appellant, the Municipality, and those that had requested Party or Participant status that the CMC would be conducted on an MS Team video conferencing platform rather than the Tribunal’s usual GoToMeeting video conferencing platform to accommodate closed captioning. The Tribunal was in receipt of a Second Affidavit of Service of Notice of the CMC sworn on September 11, 2023, which was marked as Exhibit 2. This second Affidavit provided formal notice of the change of video platform to those entitled to notice.
STATUS REQUEST
4The Tribunal was in receipt of two requests for Party status. First, a request by Indwell Community Homes, incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation. Indwell Community Homes is the Applicant for the Proposed Development. Second, Lisa Serruys requested Party status, but indicated in the Tribunal’s form that she was unable to attend the CMC.
5On the consent of the Parties, the Tribunal granted the Applicant Party status. The Tribunal notes the requirements in ss. 34(24.1) and 34(24.2) of the Act regarding the addition of Parties to an appeal pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Act and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Tribunal found that the Applicant has information and perspectives that will inform the Tribunal in making its decision and that there are reasonable grounds to add them as a Party. The Applicant made submissions to Council when it was making its decision and the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding.
6Given the content of Ms. Serruys’ request for Party status and her non-attendance at the CMC, the Tribunal concluded that it would be more appropriate to grant her Participant status rather than Party status.
7The Tribunal was also in receipt of two requests for Participant status from Janet O’Hara and Annette Charlton. On consent, Participant status was granted to these two individuals.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
8The Parties advised that they are open to settlement discussions on all or some of the issues.
NEXT STEPS
9A draft Procedural Order was not provided to the Tribunal prior to the CMC. The Appellant was not represented by Counsel, did not clearly know if she intended to call an expert witness in support of her appeal, did not know how many witnesses might be called, did not understand the purpose of a CMC and was under the mistaken impression that the Tribunal would be considering evidence and arguments on the merits of the matter at the CMC. The Tribunal recommended that the Appellant familiarize herself with the Act, the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, especially Rules 8 and 23, as well as the other resources available on the Tribunal’s website.
10Given these circumstances, the Tribunal found that setting a second CMC was unavoidable. This would provide time for the Appellant to reconsider retaining legal representation and expert land planning witness or witnesses. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that a second CMC be scheduled for Friday, November 24, 2023. The Tribunal directed the Appellant to file with the Tribunal a draft Procedural Order, including a consolidated Issues List on or before Tuesday, October 24, 2023. At the second CMC, the Parties are expected to be prepared to: finalize the Procedural Order, the Issues List, and all related matters thereto; update the Tribunal on the outcome of any settlement efforts; and update the Tribunal on the status of the appeals. The Tribunal informed the Appellant that her lack of legal representation is not grounds for further delay in this appeal.
11Ms. Lombardi, Counsel for the Applicant, indicated that she reserved the right to make one or more Motions, returnable at the second CMC, to dismiss the appeal, strike portions of the appeal or narrow the issues under appeal. The need for such a Motion or Motions will be considered by her and her client after the filing of the draft Procedural Order, and timely notice will be given.
12The Parties were directed to advise the Tribunal of any settlement as soon as possible.
13The second CMC will proceed by video hearing on MS Teams on Friday, November 24, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.
14Parties and Participants 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.
15The Teams invite will be sent to all Parties by the Case Coordinator. The following details will be provided in the invite:
Meeting ID: 291 247 013 813
Passcode: Nc28iQ
Join with a video conferencing device
Video Conference ID: 112 835 078 8
Alternate VTC instructions
Or call in (audio only)
+1 647-749-1728, 518749655# Canada, Toronto
(833) 250-5389, 518749655# Canada (Toll-free)
16Individuals 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
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
a. Indwell Community Homes is granted Party status in this proceeding;
b. Lisa Serruys, Janet O’Hara and Annette Charlton are granted Participant status in this proceeding;
c. The Appellant is to submit a complete draft Procedural Order to the Tribunal and all Parties on or before Tuesday, October 24, 2023, which must include a draft Hearing Plan, an Issues List, as well as the name and number of expert witnesses.
18The Member of the Panel is not seized, however, will remain available for case management, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
19No further notice will be given.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS
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.