Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 22, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000842
OLT-23-000853
OLT-23-001214
OLT-23-001210
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Applicant/Appellant: 31F Development Limited Partnership
Subject: Development charge rate
Description: Determination of the development charges
Reference Number: 22 229452 BLD 0 NB
Property Address: 32, 36 and 38 Olive Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000842
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000842
OLT Case Name: 31F Development Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Applicant/Appellant: 8 Elm Development Limited Partnership
Subject: Development charge rate
Description: Determination of the development charges
Reference Number: 22 216196 BLD 00 NB
Property Address: 8 Elm Street and 348-354 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000853
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000853
OLT Case Name: 8 Elm Development Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Applicant/Appellant: Montclair Developments #1 Inc.
Description: Determination of the development charges
Property Address: 63-91 Montclair Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001214
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001214
OLT Case Name: Montclair Developments #1 Inc.v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Applicant/Appellant: 109 Erskine Inc.
Description: Determination of the development charges
Property Address: 109 Erskine Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001210
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001210
OLT Case Name: 109 Erskine Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: City of Toronto
Request for: Request for Directions
Heard: January 23, 2024 via Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of Toronto
Jason Davidson, Derin Abimbola and Amrit Sandhu
31F Development Limited Partnership
David Bronskill
8 Elm Development Limited Partnership
David Bronskill
Montclair Developments #1 Inc.
Conner Harris and Leah Cummings
109 Erskine Inc.
Conner Harris and Leah Cummings
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT ON JANUARY 23, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
MATTER ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED
131F Development Limited Partnership (“31F Development”) brought an appeal pursuant to s. 22(2) of the Development Charges Act against the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) Council to make a decision with respect to a complaint brought in connection with the determination of the development charges deriving from the redevelopment of lands known as 32, 36 and 38 Olive Avenue. A one-day hearing had been scheduled to hear the appeal.
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
2The City having also received appeals pursuant to s. 22(2) of the Development Charges Act brought by 8 Elm Development Limited Partnership, Montclair Developments #1 Inc. and 109 Erskine Inc. brought a Motion to Consolidate all four appeals on the contention that all appeals attack the validity of identical agreements entered into between the respective party and the City, and that, from the perspective of the City hearing all four matters at the same time, would in fact prove to be more efficient.
3The Motion to Consolidate is contested by all four Appellant Parties, submitting that each is a separate entity with an appeal worthy of individual adjudication, that each is at a different stage of readiness, that Parties would in fact be financially prejudiced by having to either incur delay or additional expense given the likelihood that a consolidated hearing would require longer hearing time, and most importantly, that given the different bases for the appeals, that Parties would become party to a grounds for appeal which they, in their appeal, do not advance.
4After having reviewed and hearing and considering the submissions of all of the Parties, the Tribunal rendered an oral decision on the Motion as follows:
a. Firstly, the Tribunal will address all housekeeping matters by granting an order to abridge the notice requirements where applicable in this proceeding;
b. On the motion itself, the Tribunal is not persuaded that sufficient commonalities exist to support the request to consolidate. The Tribunal is of the view that four separate entities have brought site specific appeals and each is individually entitled to be granted a full and fair hearing on the merit of the respective relief sought;
c. The Tribunal is persuaded that the differences in the relief sought in the appeals between a finding that the agreement as administered is invalid as opposed to a finding that the agreement has been incorrectly interpreted when determining the calculation are separate and distinct legal challenges worthy of separate and focused deliberations, which if combined would be prejudicial to the individual Parties; and,
d. The Tribunal therefore finds that contrary to the assertion that consolidation would be more efficient, and by its own reckoning, and experience, believes that potentially more hearing time would be required and certainly would result in days lost from any productive use of arising out of the requested adjournments.
ORDER
5The Motion to Consolidate is therefore denied.
“Sharyn Vincent”
SHARYN VINCENT
VICE-CHAIR
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.