Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 05, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000635
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: Soneil Hurontario
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the mixed-use development of four 23-storey to 45-storey towers and two 5-storey buildings consisting of 1610 residential units and office and commercial space.
Reference Number: OZS-2023-0003
Property Address: 2 County Court Boulevard (Part of Block 133, Registered Plan 43M-553)
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000635
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000635
OLT Case Name: Soneil Hurontario v. Brampton (City)
Heard: October 9, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Soneil Markham Inc. o/a Soneil Hurontario
Counsel
Isaac Tang Lee English
City of Brampton
Eugenia Bashura Steven Ross
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON OCTOBER 9, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1On October 9, 2024, the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) took place before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Soneil Markham Inc. o/a Soneil Hurontario (“Applicant”) resulting from the failure of the City of Brampton (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframe of the Act on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”). The ZBA relates to lands located at 2 County Court Boulevard in the City (“Subject Property”).
2The purpose of the ZBA is to allow for a mixed-used development of four 23-storey to 45-storey towers and two five-storey buildings consisting of 1610 residential units as well as office and commercial space.
3At the CMC, the Tribunal canvassed Counsel, who confirmed that there were no issues with the service of the Notice of CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service sworn by Olivia Hayes on September 9, 2024, which was marked as Exhibit 1, and confirms that Notice was adequately served. As such, no further notice is required.
STATUS REQUESTS
4No request for Party status was received.
5The Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating a Participant status request received from Susan Heaton. She raised a number of concerns with the proposal including the following: it would cause a high level of traffic and congestion in the area; it would lead to safety hazards for pedestrians; there was a lack of adequate parking; it would cause an increase in noise and pollution; it would have a negative impact on the environment; and it would lead to a negative change in the character and appearance of the area.
6The Applicant’s Counsel raised the concern that Ms. Heaton had not made submissions at the public meeting and had submitted her Participant request late. The Tribunal asked whether not making submissions at a public meeting would preclude her from seeking Participant status. The Applicant’s Counsel did not provide any statute or legal authority that spoke to this. Moreover, he stated that he did not object to her status request or Ms. Heaton being granted Participant status. His reason for raising this issue was because he wanted an Order from the Tribunal limiting Ms. Heaton’s Participant statement to what has already been submitted and nothing more. In other words, he wanted it indicated in the Procedural Order (“PO”) that Participant statements were to be provided by the date that Ms. Heaton provided her status request (October 2, 2024) and not beyond that date. In support of that request, he submitted that Ms. Heaton had raised new concerns for the first time, which the Applicant had not heard previously as she did not make submissions at the public meeting. If she was raising issues that were particular to her, they should have been raised earlier in the process. As a result, the Applicant requested that her statement be limited.
7The City did not object to the status request, and took no position on whether Ms. Heaton’s statement should be limited to what she has already submitted.
8The Tribunal determined that Ms. Heaton had an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in understanding the potential impacts of the ZBA on the local community. The Tribunal granted Participant status to Susan Heaton.
9At the CMC, the Tribunal reserved on the issue of whether the Participant statement should be limited and did not make a ruling at the CMC.
10Upon review, the Tribunal finds that the Participant statement will not be limited and the Order sought by the Applicant will not be granted. This is a s. 34(11) Appeal. When reviewing s. 34 of the Act, it is s. 34(19) that refers to public meetings. That section outlines certain requirements for being able to appeal a Council-approved by-law, including making oral submissions at a public meeting. However, a s. 34(11) appeal, such as this one, arises from a non-decision of Council. The Tribunal was unable to find any similar requirements with respect to public meetings that pertain to a s. 34(11) appeal. In fact, there is no indication in s. 34(11) that a public meeting needs to have even taken place before the appeal can be filed. As a result, Ms. Heaton’s failure to make submissions at the public meeting is not detrimental to her involvement as a Participant in this proceeding. Moreover, the Applicant’s Counsel did not point the Tribunal to any legal authority that would indicate otherwise.
11Considering that Ms. Heaton was not required to have made submissions to be a Participant in this proceeding, the Tribunal finds that there is no basis for which her statement should be limited. The Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure state:
7.7 Participant Statements
A person who wishes to participate in a proceeding as a participant, shall file a written participant statement that sets out their position on the appeal and issues of the proceeding, together with an explanation of their reasons in support of their position. A participant may only make submissions to the Tribunal in writing unless otherwise provided for by an Act or regulation.
12This section does not limit the Participant statement to a certain number of pages or timeline by which it is to be completed. The Parties did not rely on any authority to indicate that such a limit was justified. Moreover, the Tribunal does not find that the Applicant would suffer any prejudice if Ms. Heaton’s statement is not limited. As a result, the Tribunal will not make an Order limiting the Participant’s Statement to what was provided on October 2, 2024. Rather, Ms. Heaton will be provided with a timeline outlined in the PO, for a date after the PO is ratified by the Tribunal, to provide her final statement to the Parties and to the Tribunal.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
13A draft PO and Issues List (“IL”) were not provided prior to the CMC for a number of reasons. The Applicant’s Counsel explained those to be:
a. The Parties wanted to wait for the first CMC to take place, so all Parties and Participants could be identified before an IL was finalized;
b. The City had yet to provide the draft IL for a variety of reasons, including outstanding issues pertaining to related files (discussed in “c” below); and
c. Concurrently, the following appeals are before the Tribunal:
OLT-23-000609: appeals pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Act against the City’s passage of an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 247) regarding the interim policies of the Major Transit Station Areas (“MTSA”); and
OLT-24-000688: appeals filed against the newly adopted 2023 City of Bampton Official Plan (“New OP”), which is intended to implement s. 16 of the Act. Moreover, the New OP incorporates MTSA polices before the Tribunal in the OLT-23-000609 Case.
The Applicant has filed appeals in those cases as well. These matters are proceeding to mediation starting in December 2024 and continuing to next year. What takes place at the mediation may inform this matter. For example, it may lead to a scoping of the issues to be addressed. Of note, this subject file is not dependent on those files and can proceed independently of those. However, the OP policies that arise from those cases may inform what takes place in this one, as the Subject Property is located in an MTSA.
14As a result, the Parties requested that a second CMC be scheduled to allow some of the mediation proceedings to take place and for the Parties to prepare the IL. The Tribunal agreed, and a second CMC has been scheduled as detailed below.
15The Parties were directed to provide a draft PO and IL, or a status update, to the Tribunal, by Thursday, February 13, 2025. The Applicant’s Counsel undertook to submit them to the Case Coordinator by that date.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
16The Tribunal raised the issue of mediation and settlement discussions. The City’s Counsel advised that her instruction from the City is not to engage in mediation at this time. The Applicant’s Counsel expressed that, should that instruction change, they would be open to engaging in discussions and/or mediation.
17The Parties were directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the Hearing, and should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services.
SECOND CMC
18The Parties requested that a second CMC be scheduled. The Tribunal scheduled same by video hearing on Thursday, February 20, 2025 at 10 a.m.
19On that date, the Parties 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:
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Access Code: 687-587-165
20Parties 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
21Persons 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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free): +1-888-299-1889. The Access Code is as indicated above.
22Individuals 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 CMC 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
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. Susan Heaton is a Participant in this proceeding;
b. The Participant can provide a written statement up to the date to be outlined in the Procedural Order, which is to be on a date after the Procedural Order is ratified by the Tribunal;
c. A second Case Management Conference is scheduled to take place as described above in this Decision; and
d. The Procedural Order and Issues List, or a status update, are to be provided to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by Thursday, February 13, 2025.
24There will be no further notice.
25This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE 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.