Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 09, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000126
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Walied Khogali Ali
Subject: By-law No. 1325-2023
Description: To permit the development of 12 buildings with heights ranging from 6 to 39 storeys
Reference Number: 22 136063 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 325 Gerrard Street E
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000126
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000126
OLT Case Name: Khogali Ali v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: Ontario Land Tribunal
Request for: Request for Dismissal Without a Hearing
Heard: In writing; Materials received on March 6 and March 11, 2024
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Walied Khogali Ali (“Appellant”)
Ian Flett
Toronto Community Housing Corporation and 2747199 Ontario Limited (“Toronto Community Housing” or “Applicant”)
Signe Leisk Jennifer Evola
City of Toronto (“City”)
(no appearances)
DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This proceeding arose from a notice of intention to dismiss the appeal without a hearing delivered by the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT” or “Tribunal”) to the Appellant, dated February 14, 2024.
2By delivering its notice of intention to dismiss, the Tribunal initiated on its own accord a motion in writing (“Motion”) pursuant to its authority under section 19(1)(c) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, S.O. 2021 (“OLTA”); Rule 15.4 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”); and pursuant to the provisions of section 34(25) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“PA”).
3Simply put, the Appellant commenced an appeal on January 30, 2024 of the enactment by the City of Zoning By-law No. 1325-2023 (“ZBA”), under which Toronto Community Housing and the City have been proceeding with an extensive, multi-phase redevelopment of a longstanding affordable housing project in downtown Toronto known as Regent Park. Substantial aspects of this redevelopment were already completed pursuant to phase specific zoning by-laws passed prior to the date that the Appellant decided to file his Notice of Appeal with respect to the ZBA.
4As described by Toronto Community Housing in its responding record described below in paragraph [5], the key attributes and objectives of this significant project are (below emphasis added):
Since 2003, Regent Park has been the subject of a City council-approved revitalization inclusive of the redevelopment of 28 hectares of land through 5 phases, resulting in a mixed-use, mixed-income neighborhood. Various planning approvals have been secured to enable this development… Retention, expansion, and improvement of the affordable housing present in Regent Park has been at the core of the revitalization efforts. Phases 1 to 3 of the revitalization have been completed or are under construction. Phases 1 to 3 have resulted, or will result, in the replacement of 1,450 social housing units, the creation of 427 new affordable units, and the creation of 4,668 market housing units. Phases 1 to 3 have also included the creation of various new parks and community facilities… By-law 1325-2023 enables Phases 4 and 5 of the Regent Park revitalization. As approved, Phases 4 and 5 will include the replacement of 633 social housing units, the creation of 637 new affordable housing units and 1,976 market condominium units…
5The City did not deliver any materials responding to the Motion. However, both Toronto Community Housing and the Appellant filed materials as follows:
(a) RESPONDING RECORD OF TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING, dated March 6, 2024, comprising 125 pages;
(b) BOOK OF AUTHORITIES OF TORONTO COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION AND 2747199 ONTARIO LIMITED, dated March 6,2024, comprising 81 pages;
(c) Written Submissions of the Appellant pursuant to section 19(2) of the Planning Act, dated March 6, 2024, comprising 67 pages; and
(d) Reply Submissions of the Appellant, dated March 11, 2024, comprising 3 pages.
THE TEST TO BE APPLIED ON THIS TRIBUNAL MOTION TO DISMISS
6There appears to be no substantial disagreement among the Parties concerning the test to be applied by the OLT in adjudicating this Motion.
7In its submissions, Toronto Community Housing outlines the framework of the test as follows:
Section 34(25) of the Planning Act and section 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 establish the criteria for the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal without a hearing. Each of the grounds for dismissal under section 34(25) of the Planning Act and section 19(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal, 2021 are disjunctive within and between sections. Only one ground needs to be established for an appeal to be dismissed… The Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (October 13, 2023, ed.) further outlines at rule 15.4 that the Tribunal, on its own initiative and without a hearing event, may dismiss a matter by adjudicative order…
8The Appellant does not appear to dispute the framing of the test put forward by Toronto Community Housing. However, he takes issue with certain wording contained in the notice of intention to dismiss the appeal (below emphasis added):
“…The Tribunal's reason for the intended dismissal is related to the appellant's claim concerning the status of the City of Toronto’s Official Plan Amendment 558, suggesting that it is currently under appeal. The Tribunal's letter implies that OPA 558 is therefore not in force. Contrary to the Tribunal's implication, OPA 558 is indeed in force and effect on the lands in question… As a result, the reasons for dismissal cited by the Tribunal are based on a misunderstanding. This misunderstanding stems from the unclear wording used in the Notice of Appeal by the Appellant, who is not a legal professional, and an incorrect assumption by the individual from the Tribunal who issued the correspondence. Therefore, the appeal should not be dismissed on these grounds… ‘
9Section 34(25) of the PA states (all below emphasis added):
Dismissal without hearing
(25) Despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and subsection (24), the Tribunal may, on its own initiative or on the motion of any party, dismiss all or part of an appeal without holding a hearing if any of the following apply:
- The Tribunal is of the opinion that,
i. the reasons set out in the notice of appeal do not disclose any apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal,
ii. the appeal is not made in good faith or is frivolous or vexatious,
iii. the appeal is made only for the purpose of delay, or
iv. the appellant has persistently and without reasonable grounds commenced before the Tribunal proceedings that constitute an abuse of process.
The appellant has not provided written reasons for the appeal.
The appellant intends to argue a matter mentioned in subsection (19.0.1) but has not provided the explanations required by that subsection.
The appellant has not paid the fee charged by the Tribunal.
The appellant has not responded to a request by the Tribunal for further information within the time specified by the Tribunal. 2019, c. 9, Sched. 12, s. 6 (8); 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, s. 80 (1).
10Section 19 of OLTA states (all below emphasis added):
19 (1) Subject to subsection (4), the Tribunal may, on the motion of any party or on its own initiative, dismiss a proceeding without a hearing,
(a) if the party who brought the proceeding has not paid any fee required to be paid under this Act;
(b) if the party who brought the proceeding has not responded to a request by the Tribunal for further information within the time specified by the Tribunal;
(c) if the Tribunal is of the opinion that the proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success;
(d) in any circumstance listed in subsection 4.6 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act; or
(e) in any circumstance provided for under any other Act.
Notice
(2) The Tribunal shall give the parties notice of its intention to dismiss the proceeding, setting out the reasons for the dismissal and informing the parties of their right to make written submissions to the Tribunal with respect to the dismissal within the time specified in the notice.
Submissions
(3) A party who receives a notice under subsection (2) may make written submissions to the Tribunal with respect to the dismissal within the time specified in the notice.
Dismissal
(4) The Tribunal shall not dismiss a proceeding under subsection (1) until it has given notice under subsection (2) and considered any submissions made under subsection (3).
Application
(5) For greater certainty, this section applies instead of section 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
11Rule 15.4 of the Rules provides (all below emphasis added):
15.4 Dismissal of Proceeding without a Hearing
The Tribunal may, on its own initiative and without a hearing event, dismiss a matter by adjudicative order where:
(a) the initiating matter is frivolous, vexatious or is commenced in bad faith;
(b) the initiating matter deals with matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; or
(c) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the proceeding has not been met.
Before dismissing a matter, the Tribunal shall provide appropriate notice of the intended dismissal to the party who has initiated the proceeding and any appropriate statutory parties to the proceeding. All parties who receive such notice may make written submissions on the dismissal within the timelines set out in Rule 10.
12The jurisprudence of the OLT and the Divisional Court concerning the test expressed under both OLTA and the PA relevant to this Motion is well-established.
13The Tribunal is of the view (as substantially argued by Toronto Community Housing) that the caselaw establishes the following propositions that are relevant to the issues raised by the Motion:
(a) As set out in City of Toronto v. East Beach Community Association, 1996 CarswellOnt 5740, [1996] O.M.B.D. No. 1890, 42 O.M.B.R. 505 (“East Beach”) (all below emphasis added):
…The Board is entitled to examine the reasons stated… [in a Notice of Appeal]…to see whether they constitute genuine, legitimate and authentic planning reasons. This is not to say that the Board should take away the rights of appeal whimsically, readily and without serious consideration of the circumstances of each case. This does not allow the Board to make a hasty conclusion as to the merit of an issue. Nor does it mean that every appellant should draft the appeal with punctilious care and arm itself with ironclad reason for fear of being struck down. What these particular provisions allow the Board to do is seek out whether there is authenticity in the reasons stated, whether there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and whether the issues are worthy of the adjudicative process…
(b) It was noted in 2654964 Ontario Inc v. Whitby (Town), 2022 CanLII 122415 (ON LT) (all below emphasis added):
The above passage in East Beach has been consistently cited with approval in a number of decisions of the Tribunal and of the Divisional Court, most recently in Bacher v. GR (CAN) Investments et al., 2022 ONSC 2937 (“Bacher”). The Divisional Court in Bacher went on to cite additional Tribunal decisions including the following passage:
“Numerous OMB and Tribunal decisions on motions to dismiss have considered the evidentiary requirements for an appeal to survive such a motion. While expert evidence – planning or otherwise – is not required for an appeal to proceed to a hearing, the Tribunal will carefully consider such evidence when it is tendered during the motion. Where an appellant disagrees with data or expert analysis that support a proposed development, the Tribunal expects the appellant to present its own analysis in support of its appeal. The Tribunal therefore expects that when an appellant tenders evidence in response to a motion to dismiss its appeal, the evidence will support the case the appellant intends to make to the Tribunal at the hearing. Similarly, and in accordance with the long line of OMB and Tribunal cases on these motions, that evidence must rise above the level of mere speculation and apprehension if the appeal is to survive the motion.”
(c) As determined in Brown v. Sault Ste Marie (City), 2023 CarswellOnt 3336 (OLT), and as is clear from the provisions reproduced in paragraphs [9] and [10] above, section 34(25) of the PA and section 19(1) of OLTA establish the criteria for the Tribunal to dismiss an appeal without a hearing. Each of the grounds for dismissal under section 34(25) of the PA and section 19(1) of OLTA are disjunctive within and between sections an only one ground needs to be established for an appeal to be dismissed;
(d) Other provisions of the PA and the Rules also require a similar exercise by the OLT, namely section 34(19.0.1) of the PA and Rule 5.1(c) which requires the Appellant to provide reasons within the Notice of Appeal to explain how the decision or zoning by-law fails to conform with, for example, an official plan or is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, if the Notice of Appeal refers to such grounds. An excellent recent OLT Decision which analyzed such matters was Patry v. Kingston (City), 2019 CarswellOnt 2478 (LPAT) (“Patry”). The extensive analysis and comments of Vice Chair Lanthier bear repeating as in this Tribunal’s view, they are germane here (all below emphasis added):
…In this case, it is not disputed that the material filed on the Motion by the Appellant contains additional explanations as to the basis or grounds for the Appeal that were not contained within the Notice of Appeal. This accordingly gives rise to the primary threshold issue arising in this Motion as to whether the Appellant may provide grounds and explanations in the motion that were not previously contained within the Notice of Appeal, which can then be relied upon by the Tribunal in considering whether the mandatory explanations are in the Notice of Appeal (and thus whether the Tribunal should vary or confirm the decisions made by the Tribunal in the mandatory Validity Screening Exercise) if, by doing so, he is amending his Notice of Appeal or providing a new Notice of Appeal…
… s. 34(19) of the Act gives rise to a mandatory obligation upon the appellant to provide explanations as to the manner in which the planning instruments that are the subject matter of the appeal, achieve, or fail to achieve, consistency and conformity…
… the Appellant's Notice of Appeal, as it has been filed, does not identify the ground/ basis of inconsistency with the PPS in relation to the ZBLA Appeal. It also does not contain the explanations required under the two subsections of the Act identified above. The single sentence, as it is, does only two things: it identifies that there is a lack of conformity of the OPA and the ZBLA is with respect to the Princess Street Corridor Special Policy Area of the City of Kingston's OP; and that the lack of conformity is with that part of the City's OP that relates to the angular plane requirements presumably contained therein.
…An appellant's marginal efforts in providing only the barest regurgitation of the requirements of consistency and conformity in the Notice of Appeal, is simply not enough to satisfy the requirement for explanations… an appellant will… [not]…meet the statutory tests merely by mimicking the language of the section and making the bald declarations of consistency and conformity required. These assertions must be connected, in the Notice of Appeal, to facts that will take the Tribunal to a reasonable conclusion that there are live issues of consistency and conformity in the appeal.
… An explanation, in its barest form, must provide an answer to the question of either "how" or "why". It is a matter of common-sense that an explanation must "explain" by answering the question of how or why. The Act therefore simply requires an appellant to explain for what reason, in what way or in what manner, and upon what facts, the appellant asserts that the instrument in question does not conform with, conflicts with, or is inconsistent with, the provincial policies or the official plan. If any person will, in reading an explanation, understand the "how" and the "why" of it, then the explanation has been provided.
…… What remains next to consider, is the material filed by the Appellant on the Motion. The Tribunal will … review the material filed on a motion such as this, "to shed light on the question of the adequacy of the explanations", and seek to clearly understand or "discern the substance of the explanation provided". For the reasons that follow, that cannot occur here since there are no explanations in the Notice of Appeal that can be subjected to scrutiny and the exercise of discerning adequacy or substance… The ultimate issue for the Tribunal that remains to be determined in this Motion is thus whether the Appellant may, in the course of providing evidence on the Motion, be permitted to go beyond the exercise of providing additional documents or information to assist the Tribunal in understanding the assertions already made in the Notice of Appeal …and instead partially or fully amend the Notice of Appeal by adding a ground/basis of inconsistency to the Appeal and provide the missing explanations…
… although the Tribunal certainly has the ability to consider evidence on a Motion that might assist it in understanding the nature of the explanations provided in the Notice of Appeal …Neither the legislation, nor the Rules of Practice grants the Tribunal the authority to permit an appellant to amend a notice of appeal to make valid, what is invalid, or, more pointedly, the authority to provide, "anew" a valid notice of appeal to replace the one that was determined to be invalid because it lacked necessary grounds and was without any explanations.
…… The Appellant poses the question - then why have a motion such as this one, if not to give the opportunity to the Appellant to supplement the material filed?... There is a clear distinction to be made between providing additional evidence and documentation on the motion to assist the Tribunal in understanding the grounds and explanations that are already contained in the Notice of Appeal and providing the grounds and explanations that were never there.
APPLICATION OF THE TEST TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS APPEAL
14Obviously, where the Appellant and Toronto Community Housing differ is with respect to how the above legal propositions apply to this appeal.
The Notice of Appeal is on its Face Inadequate; The Attack on the OLT’s Notice is Irrelevant
15In his notice of appeal, the Appellant offers only a bare bones statement of the underlying basis for his appeal:
…The application submitted by Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) and Deltera Inc on April 10th 2023 violates the City of Toronto's bylaw OPA558 - City Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 558 – Updating the Definitions of Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing at its meeting on November 10, 2021.The Official Plan Amendment 558 has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) …The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) issued under subsection 3(1) of the Planning Act emphasizes efficient land use and development patterns that support sustainability, the economy, and public health and safety. The PPS focuses on various areas including building strong communities, wise use and management of resources, and protecting public health and safety, especially regarding natural hazards. Its policies are designed to be implemented by municipalities through local planning – My argument will be focused on building strong communities by implementing the City of Toronto's bylaw OPA558.
16In the written submissions and reply submissions delivered by the Appellant’s counsel, an attempt is made to both (i) reject the apparent basis for the OLT’s notice of intention to dismiss; and (ii) bolster the rather scant details contained in the Appellant’s notice of appeal.
17Firstly, the contents of the OLT’s notice of intention to dismiss, and any alleged inaccuracies contained therein, are not the issues to be decided on the Motion. The purpose of the notice of intention to dismiss was simply to initiate an enquiry as to the efficacy of the appeal. Any opposing Party may commence such a Motion and it is not disputed that the OLT may also do so – but it is not a ‘party adverse in interest’ to any other Party in the proceeding.
18The OLT acts in the public interest according to its mandate under OLTA and the PA to seek the positions of the Parties in a situation such as this. Once a Motion is commenced, it must be decided on the merits according to the materials and arguments made solely by the Parties – the OLT takes no position one way or the other once such a Motion is commenced. The focus by the Appellant’s counsel in attempting to impugn the OLT’s notice of intention to dismiss is, with respect, misdirected and largely irrelevant as is any allegation that the OLT may have misdescribed the status of Official Plan Amendment No. 558 in its notice of intention to dismiss. The actual current status of OPA 558 is a simple matter of fact and is in the public record as is evident from the Order of Vice-Chair Sills issued February 10, 2023.
19Secondly, although the Tribunal may certainly have regard to the evidence tendered by an Appellant who seeks to avoid dismissal of his appeal, and by the Party supporting the dismissal – as it has on this Motion – the enquiry on the Motion focuses mainly on the reasons set out in the notice of appeal, or lack thereof. This was thoroughly canvassed in the Decision in Patry, as fully detailed in paragraph [13] (d) above.
The Tribunal Prefers the Expert Evidence of Toronto Community Housing over that of the Appellant
20Here, the Appellant’s counsel has tendered an affidavit from a land use planner – Ms. Jabbour – who had no prior involvement with the underlying planning process or the circumstances which led to the City’s enactment of the ZBA (being the Manager of Planning Services for the Town of Essex, far removed from downtown Toronto and the Regent Park redevelopment project). Ms. Jabbour, by the express terms of her affidavit sworn March 6, 2024, (made part of the Appellant’s written submissions), has merely conducted a ‘paper review’ of the Appellant’s notice of appeal, the ZBA and the OLT’s notice of intention to dismiss. She was first retained in March 2024, presumably just prior to the delivery of Motion materials by counsel for the Appellant, and her opinion seeks to bolster the Appellant’s otherwise sparse notice of appeal by offering an alternative interpretation for consideration of this Tribunal. In essence, Ms. Jabbour simply advocates as to how the Tribunal ought to adjudicate this Motion (all below emphasis added):
…In the Appeal Form submitted by the Appellant on January 17, 2024…the Appellant lists the reasons for the appeal as being a violation of Official Plan Amendment No. 558 which was adopted on November 10, 2021 and which updates the definition of Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing…the Appellant has also identified that the decision of the Council or Approval Authority is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2020) issued under subsection 3 (1) of the Planning Act and provided the reasons as being the PPS focus [sic] on building strong communities and its policies as being designed to be implemented by municipalities through local planning. The Appellants lists [sic] their argument as being focused on PPS policies respecting Building Strong Communities…
…Therefore, it is my professional planning opinion that the reasons set out in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal do disclose an apparent land use planning ground upon which the Tribunal could allow all or part of the appeal; that there is authenticity in the reasons stated; and, that there are issues that should affect a decision in a hearing and that those issues are worthy of the adjudicative process…
…It is therefore my professional planning opinion that OPA No. 558 is in force and effect for the Subject Lands and therefore constitutes a section of the City of Toronto Official Plan and can therefore form the basis for a successful appeal of Bylaw 1325-2023…It is therefore my professional planning opinion that the appeal of Bylaw 1325-2023 should be allowed.
21The Tribunal finds that the bald assertions made by Ms. Jabbour about the equally bald statements made in the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal are simplistic and over-stated, particularly her largely unsupported conclusory statement that the appeal of the ZBA “should be allowed”. It seems likely that she did not conduct an in-depth assessment of the relevant planning matters or of the long public process which led to approval of the ZBA – and by extension the Regent Park redevelopment project – given that she was probably retained at the last minute to file an affidavit in support of the Appellant’s position.
22While the Appellant here apparently does not seek to in effect amend his Notice of Appeal, it is this Tribunal’s view that he has failed to address the “how” or “why” of his identified grounds. The filing of a somewhat perfunctory hastily prepared planner’s affidavit that attempts to flesh out (in conclusory fashion) what is not contained in the Notice of Appeal does not remedy this – it simply reasserts, with perhaps more elegant language, the same bare allegations. In any event, as noted above in paragraph [21], the unsupported statement of Ms. Jabbour that the ZBA appeal “should be allowed” lacks demonstrable authenticity in the Tribunal’s view – especially when considered in light of the opinions of Ms. Emma West and of the City’s planning department set out in the materials of Toronto Community Housing.
23By stark contrast, Ms. West, a partner in the respected planning firm Bousfields with over 25 years of diverse experience on a variety of large, complex projects in the GTA, was first retained by both the City and Toronto Community Housing in 2021. She led the master planning process of Phase 4 and 5 of the revitalization of Regent Park with a team of consultants, and provided land use planning services with respect to the required ZBA application and remains involved in the process which led to the ZBA enacted by the City and in the redevelopment of Regent Park. She reviewed the applicable policy and regulatory context, reviewed and guided the development of the proposed plans, liaised with City staff, the clients, and members of the consultant team, participated in and presented at numerous applicant-led and City-led community and stakeholder meetings (including at least one attended by the Appellant where he apparently raised similar points to those in his notice of appeal), prepared the planning rationale report, reviewed the urban design brief and urban design guidelines which led to Council’s approval of the ZBA and to the Regent Park redevelopment project.
24Ms. West offers a detailed professional opinion as to how the reasons set out in the Appellant’s notice of appeal do not raise any clear or convincing planning rationale. Admittedly, she does so at the behest of Toronto Community Housing (and no doubt the City) which seeks the dismissal of this appeal. However, her opinions are thorough, cogent and wholly consistent with those of the City’s expert planning staff whose recommended acceptance of the ZBA was agreed to by City Council. The Tribunal finds them to be persuasive and prefers Ms. West’s evidence, as supported by the City’s planning staff, to the extent of any contradiction with the evidence of Ms. Jabbour. Ms. West stated (all below emphasis added):
…After a multi-year process that included two resubmissions with updated materials to respond to comments from the City and community, a Staff Report recommending approval was presented to Toronto and East York Community Council (“TEYCC”) on June 22, 2023, with TEYCC’s recommendation provided to City Council at its meeting on July 19, 2023. City Council adopted the recommendations listed in the staff report with minor amendments, and approved the ZBLA…
…The Appeal Form identified Municipal Act subsection 223(4) and the City of Toronto Act subsection 129(4) as the grounds for the appeal…The Appellant further states that the reason for the appeal is because the application violates City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment 558 – Updating the Definitions of Affordable Rental and Ownership Housing (“OPA 558”). The Appellant further states that OPA 558 has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
…The Appeal Form also references the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”)… The Appellant states that their “argument will be focused on building strong communities by implementing the City of Toronto's bylaw OPA 558”…
…The Appeal does not raise any reasons why the ZBLA does not conform to OPA 558. The ZBLA updates the site-specific built form performance standards, permitted uses, and Section 37 contributions for the multi-building development on the Subject Lands. The ZBLA does not relate to or amend the definitions provided in OPA 558…OPA 558 was in-force for the Subject Lands at the time that Council made its decisions in July 2023 and December 2023. In this regard, City staff would have prepared their Decision Report after OPA 558 was in effect and forming part of the Official Plan. In their June 6, 2023 Decision Report, City Staff opine that the application conforms with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan. I adopt and agree with the opinion of City Staff.
…The Appeal does not raise any reasons why the ZBLA is inconsistent with the PPS. In their June 6, 2023 Decision Report, City staff opine that the application is consistent with the objectives and policies of the PPS. I adopt and agree with the opinion of City Staff.
…As summarized in the preceding paragraphs, it is my professional opinion that the ZBLA is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Official Plan, including OPA 558, and the Appeal does not raise genuine, legitimate, and authentic land use planning grounds. It is my professional opinion that the Appeal has no reasonable prospect for success.
CONCLUSIONS: THE APPELLANT’S NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE DISMISSED
25Based on the materials presented to this Tribunal, and the applicable statutory provisions, Rules and jurisprudence described and analyzed in paragraphs [6] to [13] above, the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal must be dismissed. In making this determination, the Tribunal also has accepted the expert opinion of Ms. West, as supported by the opinions and recommendations of the City’s planning staff. It is clear that the ZBA and the resultant Regent Park redevelopment project, already partially completed, was the outcome of a long, complex, detailed, multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary planning process that culminated in the approval of City Council after lengthy public consultations and stakeholder meetings. Finally, in reaching its Decision on this Motion the Tribunal has also had due regard for the significance of the democratic decision made by City Council to enact the ZBA and to approve a project aimed at enhancing and increasing the provision of affordable housing in downtown Toronto along with a number of other types of housing and mixed use development.
26It was incumbent on the Appellant, whose submissions here indicated his own long history of involvement and interest in the above-noted matters and proceedings, to prepare and file a coherent and properly detailed notice of appeal setting out genuine, legitimate reasons and grounds. In this Tribunal’s view, for the reasons described above, he failed to do so.
ORDER
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Notice of Appeal of Walied Khogali Ali, dated January 30, 2024, is therefore dismissed.
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON 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.