Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 29, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000803, OLT-24-000163
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Roseville Properties Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To facilitate the development of 10 street townhouses Reference Number: Z.1714.28 Property Address: 106-114 Robinson Street and 71 Water Street Municipality: Town of Oakville OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000803 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000803 OLT Case Name: Roseville Properties Inc. v. Oakville (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12.0.1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Roseville Properties Inc. Subject: Site Plan – Appeal of requirements of approval Description: To facilitate the development of 10 street townhouses Reference Number: SP.1714.080/01 Property Address: 106-114 Robinson Street and 71 Water Street Municipality: Town of Oakville OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000163 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000163 OLT Case Name: Roseville Properties Inc. v. Oakville (Town)
Heard: July 23, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Roseville Properties Inc. | Russell D. Cheeseman, Stephanie A. Fleming |
| Town of Oakville | Dennis Perlin, Nadia Chandra (in absentia) |
| Region of Halton | Kelly Yerxa |
| Janice Johnston | Michael Barton* |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON JULY 23, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Hearing was the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal under section 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Roseville Properties Inc. (“Applicant”) resulting from the Town of Oakville’s (“Town”) failure to make a decision within the statutory timeframe on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”).
2This Hearing was also the first CMC with respect to an appeal under section 41(12.01.1) of the Act by the Applicant resulting from the Town’s conditional approval of a Site Plan Application pertaining to the same proposed development. Namely, the Applicant has appealed a number of the Conditions of Approval.
3The purpose of the ZBA and Site Plan is to facilitate the development of 10 townhouses at 106–114 Robinson Street and 71 Water Street in the Town.
4With respect to the ZBA Appeal, two CMCs have previously taken place, on December 8, 2023 (“December CMC”) and February 9, 2024 (“February CMC”), with the Decisions having been issued on December 19, 2023 and March 20, 2024, respectively. The following took place:
a. At the December CMC, the Tribunal confirmed that Notice had been adequately served and no further Notice was required. The Region of Halton (“Region”) and Janice Johnston (“Johnston”) were each added as a Party in the proceeding. Andrew Cockwell was granted Participant status.
b. At the February CMC, a six-day hearing was scheduled to commence on Monday, September 23, 2024. The particulars of that Video Hearing are provided in the Decision issued on March 20, 2024.
5With respect to the Site Plan Appeal, the Tribunal canvased Counsel who raised no concerns with the Tribunal-issued Notice.
6Johnston did not attend this CMC. The other Parties had not heard from her and could not assist in an understanding of why she had not attended. The Tribunal proceeded with the CMC as Johnston had been made well-aware of this CMC, both in the Decision from the February CMC as well as from communications which had been sent by the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator regarding this CMC.
SITE PLAN APPEAL
7As had been contemplated at the December and February CMCs, the Applicant requested that the Site Plan Appeal be heard together with the ZBA Appeal in accordance with Rules 16.1 and 16.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), as the issues raised in the Site Plan Appeal would directly align with those in the ZBA Appeal, and the witnesses would be the same. The Town, who is the only other statutory Party in a Site Plan Appeal, agreed with this course of action.
8The Tribunal also agreed, as it would result in an efficient and cost-effective Hearing of the two Appeals. The Tribunal ordered that the Site Plan Appeal and the ZBA Appeal would be heard together.
9Subsequently, the Region sought Party status in the Site Plan Appeal, as a number of the Conditions proposed for the Site Plan were from the Region and impacted regional interests. The other Parties did not object. The Tribunal found that the Region was an appropriate Party and would assist the Tribunal in making its decision on this matter. As a result, the Tribunal granted Party status to the Region.
10For clarity, while Johnston is a Party in the ZBA Appeal, she is not a Party in the Site Plan Appeal, pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Rules.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
11A draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) had been provided to the Tribunal prior to the February CMC. The IL included issues from the Region and from Johnston, but not from the Town.
12At this CMC, the Applicant’s Counsel explained that there was a potential settlement on the horizon between the Applicant, the Town, and the Region. As a result, the Parties had delayed providing the final IL in the hopes that a settlement would be reached between them. At this point, though they were close, they had not finalized their agreement. Moreover, if they were able to resolve the ZBA Appeal, it was highly likely that the issues in the Site Plan Appeal would be resolved as well, which would allow the Applicant to withdraw that Appeal. For now, the Parties wished to maintain the dates of the currently scheduled Hearing until they reached an agreement.
13With respect to Johnston’s issues, those had not been resolved. The Applicant’s Counsel enquired as to the impact of Johnston’s non-attendance at the CMC on her position at the Hearing. However, the Tribunal indicated that the Parties were well-aware of the issues she had raised. Moreover, no PO and IL had been issued, and therefore Johnston was not in breach of any issued Orders. As a result, the Tribunal did not make any Orders with respect to Johnston’s issues on the IL. However, the Tribunal directed that the Parties reach out to Johnston and attempt to engage in settlement discussions with her as well.
14With respect to the final PO and IL, the Tribunal directed that it be provided as soon as possible, which the Parties advised would be mid-August. The Tribunal ordered the final PO and IL to be provided by Wednesday, August 14, 2024. The Tribunal directed that the IL should contain all issues to be raised, including those to be raised by the Applicant in the Site Plan Appeal.
DATES OF PRODUCTION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS
15Due to the imminent timing of the Hearing, the Tribunal made the following production Orders to allow the Parties sufficient advanced Notice while the PO and IL are being finalized:
a. On or before August 30, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other Parties and to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
b. On or before September 13, 2024, any responding witness statements are to be provided to the other Parties and to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
16The Parties advised that they were in discussions with the hope of achieving a settlement agreement. The Parties are 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.
ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. The appeal by Roseville Properties Inc. (“Applicant”) pursuant to section 41(12.01.1) of the Planning Act (OLT-24-000163) is to be heard together with the Applicant’s appeal pursuant to section 34 of the Planning Act (OT-23-000803), in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
b. On or before August 14, 2024, the Procedural Order and Issues List are to be provided to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
c. On or before August 30, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other Parties and to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
d. On or before September 13, 2024, any responding witness statements are to be provided to the other Parties and to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
18This 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.