Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001209

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): April 05, 2024

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: April 17, 2024

RE: Credit Valley Residents Association et al v Brampton (City)

Correction to: The date for the next Hearing in paragraph [14].

Originally:

14At the request of the Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to address the question of whether the three cases should be heard together, resolve the scoping of issues, deal with any motions or other preliminary matters, and provide for a more efficient hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC on Friday, May 24, 2023, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing.

Corrected to:

14At the request of the Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to address the question of whether the three cases should be heard together, resolve the scoping of issues, deal with any motions or other preliminary matters, and provide for a more efficient hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC on Friday, May 24, 2024, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing.

"Euken Lui"

EUKEN LUI REGISTRAR 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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 05, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001209

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Credit Valley Residents Association & Kaneff Properties Limited

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OP2006-254ks

Description: To permit the amendment of the Credit Valley Secondary Plan Area 45

Reference Number: OPA 2006OP-254

Property Address: The intersection of Queen Street West and Creditview Road, extending westerly to Elbern Markel Drive and easterly towards Springbrook Creek.

Municipality/UT: Brampton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001209

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001209

OLT Case Name: Credit Valley Residents Association et al v. Brampton (City)

Heard: March 20, 2024 via Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Credit Valley Residents Association	Samir Shah*, Nimrata Sandhu (in absentia)
Kaneff Properties Limited	Mark Flowers, Narmada Gunawardana
City of Brampton	Eugenia Bashura, Steven Ross (in absentia)
Cal-Markell Developments Inc.	David Bronskill
AVM Developments Inc.	Jasmine Fraser, Patrick Harrington (in absentia)
Crystal Homes (Wildflower) Corporation	Alex Lusty

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. MASON ON MARCH 20, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held in respect of three appeals, as follows:

a. OLT-23-001209: being an appeal by the Credit Valley Residents Association (“CVRA”) and Kaneff Properties Limited (“Kaneff”) pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”) with respect to Official Plan Amendment 254 (“OPA 254”) initiated by the City of Brampton (“Brampton”) to amend the Credit Valley Secondary Plan Area 45 to add back lands to the Springbrook Tertiary Plan that were previously removed in 2020 so that further considerations could be made to increase height and density for lands fronting onto Queen Street West (“City Wide OPA Appeal”);

b. OLT 23-001186: being an appeal by the CVRA pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Act with respect to an official plan amendment approved by Brampton Council (“Site Specific OPA Appeal”) for the lands municipally known as 1724 and 1730 Queen Street West (“Subject Lands”), where Cal-Markell Developments Inc. (“Cal-Markell”) was the applicant for a development that would facilitate 130 stacked townhouse units and 520 apartment units within two towers (18 and 14 storeys) positioned on a five-storey podium (“Development”); and

c. OLT 23-001187: being an appeal by the CVRA and Springbrook Community Management Inc. (“Springbrook”) pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Act with respect to a zoning by-law amendment approved by Brampton Counsel for the Subject Lands (“Site Specific ZBA Appeal”), where Cal-Markell was the applicant for the Development.

2The City Wide OPA Appeal, the Site Specific OPA Appeal and the Site Specific ZBA Appeal were brought to the same CMC at the request of Brampton, and on consent of the Parties, for: (1) organizational purposes; (2) because the CVRA was an appellant in all three cases; and (3) because the Subject Lands are within the OPA 254 lands.

3The Site Specific OPA Appeal and the Site Specific ZBA Appeal are administratively joined together by the Tribunal (“OPA/ZBA Appeals”); however, the City Wide OPA Appeal has not been joined to those proceedings at this time. Therefore, for the purposes of this Decision, a separate but identical Decision will be issued for the City Wide OPA Appeal and for the OPA/ZBA Appeals. A discussion of the merits of hearing the matters together is set out separately in this Decision.

NOTICE

4An Affidavit of Service was sworn for each of the three cases on February 13, 2023, attesting to the giving of notice for this proceeding, and were marked as follows:

a. OLT-23-001209: Exhibit 1; and

b. OLT-23-001186 and OLT-23-001187: Exhibit 1.

REQUESTS FOR PARTY STATUS

5In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received a number of requests for Party status in each of the three cases as follows:

a. OLT-23-001209:

i. Cal-Markell requested Party status in the City Wide OPA Appeal on the basis that the Subject Lands are within OPA 254, and therefore, they have an interest in any matters that may impact the Site Specific OPA Appeals and Site Specific ZBA Appeals with respect to those issues raised by the CVRA but not by Kaneff.

ii. AVM Developments Inc. (“AVM”) being the owner of 1684 Queen Street West, located in the OPA 254 area and proximate to the Kaneff land, indicated they intend to submit development applications imminently and are interested in only those issues raised by the CVRA, not Kaneff.

iii. Crystal Homes (Wildflower) Corporation, being the owner of 1626, 1646 and 1654 Queen Street West that are within the OPA 254, is interested in protecting its existing development approvals in light of the CVRA issues, but is not interested in participating in the issues raised by Kaneff.

b. OLT 23-001186 and OLT 23-001187

i. Cal-Markell requested Party status in the Site Specific OPA Appeal and the Site Specific ZBA Appeal as they are the applicant in those approved planning instruments and have a direct interest in the outcome of the matters.

6There were no objections from any Statutory Party to the requests for Party status. Having reviewed the above requests, the Tribunal finds that participation by each entity listed in the hearing of these three appeals is reasonable and necessary to enable the Tribunal to effectively and completely adjudicate the proceedings. The Tribunal granted each of the entities set out above Party status in the corresponding proceeding.

HEARING THE CASES TOGETHER

7The Tribunal considered the question, and heard submissions from the Parties, on whether the City Wide Appeal should be heard together, but not consolidated, with the OPA/ZBA Appeals to facilitate a more expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the matters.

8With respect to the City Wide OPA Appeal, Kaneff advocated that its issues should be heard separately, and at a later date, as it intends to submit development applications shortly and anticipated that Brampton Council would not be in support of them and those matters would ultimately be appealed to the Tribunal. As such, Kaneff took the position that since its issues were only related to its lands and anticipated development applications as they relate to OPA 254, their appeal could be heard separately from the CVRA’s more general appeal. Brampton did not oppose Kaneff’s request that its issues could be carved out of and heard separately from the broader issues raised by the CVRA. None of the entities granted Party status in the City Wide OPA Appeal opposed Kaneff’s request that its issues be adjudicated separately from the CVRA’s issues and in the context of its anticipated site-specific development applications.

9The CVRA took the position that hearing all three appeals together would facilitate a more just and expeditious resolution of the matters since the Subject Lands and the lands of the entities granted Party status are within OPA 254, all of which have common issues applicable to all the appeals and Parties. Further, the CVRA advocated for hearing the matters together since there would be efficiencies in evidence preparation and in an eventual hearing.

10Throughout the CMC, the Parties in all three cases expressed concern with the breadth and generality of the draft issues list provided by the CVRA. In particular, Cal-Markell characterized the CVRA’s issues as questions of justification and not true issues to be adjudicated.

11The Tribunal considered the CVRA’s issues lists for each of the three cases in the context of deciding on whether the cases should be heard separately or together. The Tribunal found that the CVRA’s issues required further refinement and scoping for the true light between the Parties to be evaluated and the benefit of administratively joining the cases decided. As a result, the Tribunal deferred its decision on whether to administratively join the City Wide OPA and OPA/ZBA Appeals together until the second CMC and directed further information to be presented at the next hearing event, as set out in more detail below under the ‘Procedural Order and Issues List’ section in this Decision.

MEDIATION AND SCOPING OF ISSUES

12Given the overlapping issues and geographic area, albeit with lack of consensus on the whether to join the three cases together, the Tribunal canvassed the Parties regarding opportunities to scope issues and potentially resolve certain appeals. The CVRA shared a willingness to refine and scope its issues to assist the other Parties in better structuring their responses to facilitate the potential resolution of all issues. To that end, the Tribunal directed that by Monday, April 15, 2024, the CVRA is to provide the following information to the other Parties and the Tribunal:

a. Confirmation of whether the CVRA intends to scope its appeals by geographic area;

b. A revised and refined issues list (“CVRA Revised Issues List”); and

c. Clarification on what land development disciplines it intends to call at a future merit hearing for those items in the CVRA Revised Issues List.

13The Parties are aware of Tribunal-led mediation and will request same, if desired in the future, but considered that ongoing discussions and the direction of the Tribunal would facilitate discussions and potential resolution of issues at this point in time.

SECOND CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

14At the request of the Parties, the Tribunal scheduled a second CMC to address the question of whether the three cases should be heard together, resolve the scoping of issues, deal with any motions or other preliminary matters, and provide for a more efficient hearing. The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC on Friday, May 24, 2024, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing.

15Parties are asked to log into the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077

Access code: 927-921-077

16Parties 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

17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is the same as the access code noted above.

18Individuals 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 Video Hearing 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.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

19The Tribunal directed that, by Friday, May 17, 2024, seven-days in advance of the second CMC on Friday May 24, 2024, the Parties shall provide the following to the Tribunal:

a. A draft procedural order and issues list (“Draft PO/IL”) separately for the City Wide OPA Appeal and the OPA/ZBA Appeals;

b. In consideration of the Draft PO/IL for each case, a joint proposal, or if the Parties cannot agree, then individual proposals on whether the City Wide OPA Appeal and the OPA/ZBA Appeals should be heard together but not consolidated; and

c. In consideration of the Draft PO/IL for each case, a proposed structure for a future hearing of the three cases, either together or separately as proposed in 18 above.

ORDER

20The directions set out above are so ordered by the Tribunal.

21No further notice is required.

22The Member is not seized of this matter.

"A. Mason"

A. MASON 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.