Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 25, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001101
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Aphria Inc. & 1594042 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application for Consent – Appeal of Conditions Imposed
Description: To permit consents for a lot addition, an easement for existing utilities and an easement for traffic access.
Reference Number: B-18-23, B-19-23, B-20-23
Property Address: 223-265 Talbot Street West
Municipality/UT: Leamington
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001101, OLT-23-001102, OLT-23-001103
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001101
OLT Case Name: Aphria Inc. & 1594042 Ontario Inc. v. Leamington (Municipality)
Heard: September 25, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Aphria Inc. & 1594042 Ontario Inc. | J. Cooke |
| Town of Leamington | J. Pritiko |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. GOPIKRISHNA ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held in respect of an appeal filed pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, concerning a consent to sever a parcel of land located at 223-265 Talbot Street West (“Subject Lands”) and all owned by 1594042 Ontario Inc. and Aphria Inc. (“Appellant”).
2In 2018, the Appellant made four applications to the Town of Leamington (“Town”) being:
a. an application for consent to sever (“Consent”) 558.1 square metres (“m2”) from 223-265 Talbot Street West (“Severed Lands”) and add it to the west side of 255 Talbot Street West (“Receiving Lands”);
b. a Zoning-By-law Amendment Application to rezone the Severed Lands from Agricultural Restricted Zone to Commercial Highway Zone to match the zoning on the Receiving Lands;
c. an application for an easement for existing utilities crossing the Severed Lands; and,
d. an application for an access easement to allow for traffic access to the Receiving Lands and, if needed, a radius for large trucks turning on the Receiving Lands.
3The Town granted approval for the four applications each with a set of conditions. The Consent contains fifteen conditions, and the Appellant filed its appeal with respect to “Condition 10” that reads:
Prior to being endorsed on the deeds, the severed lands shall have their access to County Road 34 closed and the curb reinstalled in accordance with County of Essex requirements and standards.
4The Tribunal notes that the Zoning By-Law Amendment, referred to in Paragraph 2 (b) was approved by the Town, and is excluded from this Appeal.
5The two-day hearing on the Merits of the Appeal, scheduled by the Tribunal, which was to have commenced in February 2024, was adjourned at the request of the Parties to allow for more time for the traffic engineering report to be completed and for the resulting evidence to be prepared in anticipation of a new Merit Hearing. The Tribunal subsequently scheduled another hearing, which was to have commenced on Monday, September 9, 2024. However, this hearing was again adjourned because of attempts to mediate the contentious condition recited above. The Parties indicated their interest in the Appeal being mediated by the Tribunal, and agreed to meet for a CMC on Wednesday, September 25, 2024, to provide an update.
SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
6At the beginning of the Hearing, Mr. Pritiko, Counsel for the Municipality of Leamington, stated that the Appellant and the Municipality had reached a Settlement, which had been approved by the Municipal Council the previous day on Tuesday, September 24, 2024. The crux of the Settlement was that instead of closing access from the Severed Lands onto County Road 34, the Appellant would instead install an entrance gate onto County Road 34 from the Subject Lands to regulate traffic. According to Mr. Pritiko, the Parties had agreed that they would request the Tribunal for a Settlement Hearing after the gate had been installed. Mr. Cooke, Counsel for the Appellant, concurred with Mr. Pritiko’s remarks.
7The Parties asked the Tribunal whether it would be appropriate for the next Hearing, at which the Settlement would be presented to be conducted in writing, as opposed to a videoconference. The Tribunal replied by stating that while it was possible to proceed by way of a Written Hearing, the actual determination of which mode would be preferred could be made only after the submission of documents reflecting the Settlement by the Parties.
8The Parties stated that they did not have any other clarifications, after which the CMC ended.
ORDER
9The date of the Settlement Hearing, as well as the medium through which it will be conducted (Written Hearing vs. Videoconference) will be determined after the submission of Settlement related documents by the Parties.
10No further notice is required.
11While this Panel is not seized of this matter, it may be called upon for assistance where appropriate.
“S. Gopikrishna”
S. GOPIKRISHNA
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.