Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 16, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000563
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended
Appellant: Elizabeth Bodkin
Subject: Objection to By-law designating the Cabbagetown Southwest Heritage Conservation District
Reference Number: By-law No. 260-2024
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000563
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000563
OLT Case Name: Bodkin v Toronto (City)
Heard: October 3, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Elizabeth Bodkin (the “Appellant”) | Self-represented* |
| City of Toronto (the “City”) | M. Longo |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. ARNOLD ON october 3, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held to prepare for a hearing on the merits of the Appellant’s appeal to the Tribunal of By-law No. 260-2024 (the “By-law”) passed by the City to designate the Cabbagetown Southwest Heritage Conservation District (the “HCD”) and adopt the Plan for this District pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended (the “Appeal”). The By-law pertains to certain lands including lands municipally known as 255 Seaton Street in the City of Toronto that are owned by the Appellant (the “Appellant’s Property”).
2The Tribunal entered into evidence as Exhibit 1 in these proceedings, the Affidavit of Service of Darren Armoogam sworn on September 4, 2024, and is satisfied that the same demonstrates proper notice such that no further notice is required in these proceedings.
SETTLEMENT OF THE APPEAL
3The Appellant and the City advised the Tribunal that just prior to this CMC they reached a settlement that resolves the Appeal fully (the “Settlement”). The Settlement entails a proposed amendment to the By-law to change the cateogorization of the Appellant’s Property from “contributing” to “non-contributing” status within the By-law. In all other respects, the By-law would remain as passed by the City.
PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS
3There were no requests for Participant status in the subject proceedings.
4There was one request for Party status received in advance of the CMC that was filed by Jordan Allison who attended the CMC to speak in support of his request for Party status. The City and the Appellant opposed Mr. Allison’s request for Party status including because they have reached the Settlement that fully resolves the Appeal.
5The written request for Party status filed by Mr. Allison included an outline of his interest in the Appeal that is summarized as follows:
(a) Mr. Allison owns property located at 237 Seaton Street that is included within the HCD and as such is of the view that his interest in the Appeal is “beneficial and essential to addressing the issues at hand.”
(b) Mr. Allison has been involved in the development and implementation of the HCD for approximately nine years and is of the view that he has a “deep understanding of the designation process, certainly from the perspective of the broader public and the specific issues related to built heritage attributes that have been recently lost within the boundary.” Mr. Allison also indicated that he “hope[s] to resolve inaccurate and/or incomplete information about [his] property at 237 Seaton Street.”
(c) Mr. Allison is of the view that his “direct experience and in-depth knowledge of this particular HCD development will enable [him] to provide valuable insights and context that may assist the Tribunal in resolving the issues of the [A]ppeal.”
6Just prior to the CMC, Mr. Allison was advised of the Settlement. In oral submissions at the CMC, Mr. Allison sought Party status at the settlement hearing. Mr. Allison submitted that he has concerns about the proposed amendment to the By-law to change the category of the Appellant’s property from “contributing” to “non-contributing” and that as a Party he would be in a position to provide the Tribunal with evidence that would be helpful for its consideration of the merits of the Settlement. Mr. Allison submitted that if granted Party status he would be willing to restrict his evidence to this proposed amendment and that he would be prepared to seek and retain an expert witness in this regard.
7The Tribunal denied Mr. Allison’s request for Party status in these proceedings. Given the very narrow proposed amendment to the By-law as part of the Settlement, the Tribunal was not satisfied that granting Party status to Mr. Allison would advance the public interest materially. Mr. Allison does not have a direct interest in the proposed amendment but rather a more general concern about the rationale for the proposed amendment and a perceived impact of such amendment on the consistency of categorizations of properties pursuant to the By-law as “contributing” or “non-contributing.”
8Mr. Allison expressed interest in an opportunity to better understand the rationale for the Settlement. To that end, the City and the Appellant agreed that an opportunity would be provided to Mr. Allison to meet with the City’s heritage staff in order to discuss same. The Appellant would be provided an opportunity to attend this meeting at the Appellant’s option.
9The Appellant and the City consented to Mr. Allison being granted Participant status in these proceedings and the Tribunal granted Participant status to Mr. Allison.
10The City and the Appellant requested that the settlement hearing occur in written format. The Tribunal is satisfied that a written settlement hearing is appropriate in these proceedings given the very narrow scope of the proposed amendment to the By-law pursuant to the Settlement.
ORDER
11The Tribunal orders as follows:
(a) A written hearing on the terms of the Settlement is scheduled to take place on Friday, November 22, 2024.
(b) The City shall contact Mr. Allison and the Appellant with a view to providing an opportunity, on reasonable scheduling availability on or before Friday, October 25, 2024, for Mr. Allison to meet with the City’s heritage staff to discuss the rationale for the Settlement. The Appellant shall be provided with a reasonable opportunity to attend this meeting, at the Appellant’s option;
(c) Mr. Allison shall provide to each of the City, the Appellant and the Tribunal (through the case co-ordinator) his written Participant Statement no later than 10 business days following the date that the meeting referred to in (b) above occurs. The Parties shall forward Mr. Allison’s Participant Statement to their expert witness(es) who will be providing affidavit evidence with respect to the Settlement;
(d) The City and the Appellant, at the Appellant’s option, shall serve and file their respective affidavit evidence pertaining to the Settlement on or before 10 business days following receipt of Mr. Allison’s Participant Statement. Affidavits shall be filed with the Tribunal through the case Co-ordinator for these proceedings. In the event that the City and the Appellant do not receive Mr. Allison’s Participant Statement within the aforesaid timeline then the City and the Appellant shall proceed to serve and file their respective affidavit evidence pertaining to the Settlement by no later than Friday, November 15, 2024;
(e) The Tribunal so orders and provides these Case Management Conference directions for the purposes of the case management of the Appeal;
(f) The Member is not seized in this matter but will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits; and
(g) No further notice is required or will be given.
“D. Arnold”
D. ARNOLD
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.