Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 17 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000748 OLT-24-000749 OLT-24-000750

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: Applications for the purposes of Urban Boundary Expansion

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-018

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000748

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

OLT Case Name: Upper West Side Land Owners Group Inc. v Hamilton (city)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-019

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000749

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Reference Number: UHOPA-20-020

Property Address: Various Addresses: (9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road, Glanbrook (Ward 11))

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000750

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000748

Heard: October 3, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. (“UWSLG”)	Matthew Rutledge, Joel Farber
City of Hamilton (“City”)	Patrick MacDonald

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN ON OCTOBER 3, 2024, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”). The Appeals were brought pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act on the failure of the City to make a decision on three applications for Official Plan Amendments (“OPA”) within the prescribed legislative timelines. The Appellant seeks to develop 9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road East and 555 Glancaster Road (“Subject Lands”), in the City.

2The Applications were filed for the purposes of an urban boundary expansion as per policy 2.2.8.5 of the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan, 2019”). The UWSLG submitted the OPA applications to permit a privately initiated urban boundary expansion in an area under 40 hectares, which as per policy 2.2.8.5 of the Growth Plan, 2019, can occur outside, or in advance of the Municipal Comprehensive Review process.

NOTICE

3The sworn Affidavit of Service dated September 16, 2024, was filed prior to the hearing confirming that proper Notice of this CMC had been served. The Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1.

PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS

4The Tribunal received eight Participant status requests. Having reviewed the requests and on the consent of the Appellant and City, the Tribunal granted Participant status to the following individuals: Topaz Goold; Rick Bodner; Nicole Doro; Peter Appleton; Hamilton Wentworth Catholic District School Board (“HWCDSB”); Nancy Hurst; Peter Banting; and Marie Covert.

5HWCDSB requested in its submission that it be reserved the right to a further submission as this matter progresses. No objection to this request was received.

PARTY STATUS REQUEST

6A Party status request was received from Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc. (“Elfrida Group”) whose counsel is Ms. Nancy Smith. Ms. Smith indicated that the Elfrida Group has a direct interest in the outcome of the Appeal. Ms. Smith informed the Tribunal that the Elfrida Group will be seeking inclusion of its lands (“Elfrida Area”) in the urban area after the new Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS, 2024”) comes into effect on October 20, 2024.

7At this time, the Elfrida Group has an OPA application filed with the City for an Urban Boundary Expansion to identify the Elfrida Area as a future growth area in the City. She stated that no appeal is registered with the Tribunal on the Elfrida Area.

8In Ms. Smith’s written submission, the Elfrida Group’s interest in the Appeal before the Tribunal is primarily to ensure that the Appellant’s applications do not prioritize the inclusion of the Twenty Road West Lands into the City’s Urban Boundary in-lieu of other lands, and that it does not prioritize the redevelopment of the Twenty Road West Lands in advance of the redevelopment of the Elfrida Area. She admitted that the Elfrida Group has no direct interest in the Subject Lands and that the Elfrida Group’s future application would be site-specific. Simply put by Ms. Smith, the Elfrida Group does not want other Parties (the Appellant) to have priority as to where the urban boundaries are to be expanded.

9Counsel for the Appellant indicated that he objected to the granting of Party status. It was his opinion that granting Party status to the Elfrida Group would create a delay in these proceedings and would be prejudicial to the Appellant. He stated that the request was nothing more than a competition issue as to what lands rank first in line to be included in an urban boundary expansion as opposed to, whether the inclusion of the Subject Lands is good planning on its own merits. Mr. Rutledge further advised that the granting of Party status to the Elfrida Group would cause the Appellant unnecessary time and expense to respond to matters that are not relevant to the determination of the Appeal in front of the Tribunal at this CMC.

10The Tribunal requested greater clarity with respect to Ms. Smith’s intention to participate in the process, specifically regarding the calling of witnesses. Ms. Smith indicated that until she was apprised of the Appellant’s evidence, she would not know whether the Elfrida Group would be inclined to bring their own evidence or witnesses.

11The City took no position on the request to grant Party status to the Elfrida Group.

12The Tribunal denied the request for Party status by the Elfrida Group and found that the request would not assist the Tribunal in adjudicating effectively and completely the issues pertaining to the Subject Lands. The Tribunal is persuaded by the submissions of the Appellant that the granting of Party status would prejudice the Appellant respecting costs, time, and deviation from the purpose of the Appeal.

13Furthermore, the Elfrida Group has not participated to date in any way related to the case before the Tribunal, nor has the request for Party status demonstrated or provided any land use planning principle that would assist the Tribunal in determining the outcome of the Appeal in front of it. The Elfrida Group did not provide any information on how the Elfrida Area is impacted other than to be first out of the gate when the City considers its options on boundary expansion upon the in-effect date of the new PPS, 2024 on October 20, 2024.

14The Tribunal finds that no assistance can be found with the inclusion of the Elfrida Group, whose lands are not in the vicinity of the Subject Lands, and that all relevant land use planning issues can be addressed without the involvement of the Elfrida Group as a Party. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to add the Elfrida Group as Party to this Appeal.

15Finally, with the implementation of the PPS, 2024 being imminent, the Elfrida Group will have an opportunity to seek, from the City, guidance on their own applications under an updated policy regime.

16The Elfrida Group was invited, on consent of the Parties, to submit an application for Participant status.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

17The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC pursuant to the Parties’ request.

18The Tribunal directed the Parties to submit a draft Procedural Order and Issues List to the Case Coordinator no later than 10 days prior to the next CMC.

HEARING DATES

19A second CMC is scheduled to commence on Tuesday, January 14, 2025, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing.

20Parties and Participants are asked to log in to 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

21Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

22Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: (toll-free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is: 687-587-165.

23Individuals 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 event 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.

24The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed, which might assist in the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of this matter. The Parties indicated that there were none.

ORDER

25The directions set out above are so ordered by the Tribunal.

26Those named in paragraph [4] have been conferred Participant Status.

27This Member is not seized but will continue to manage this file and remains available through the Case Coordinator should the need arise.

28No further notice will be given.

“D. Chipman”

D. CHIPMAN

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.