Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 09, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-001263
OLT-23-001327
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 as amended
Appellant:
Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject:
Appeal of the Decision of Council on an application to demolish or remove a building or structure
Description:
To demolish or remove the “Triple Dormitory” building within Camp 30 to accommodate the proposed residential redevelopment
Reference Number:
HPA2023-009
Property Address:
2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001263
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001263
OLT Case Name:
Lambs Road School Property Limited v. Clarington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Failure to make a decision
Description:
To permit a proposed multi-phase residential redevelopment of the subject lands with mixed density
Reference Number:
ZBA2022-0007
Property Address:
2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001327
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001327
OLT Case Name:
Lambs Road School Property Limited v. Clarington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description:
To permit a proposed multi-phase residential redevelopment of the subject lands with mixed density
Reference Number:
SC2022-0005
Property Address:
2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001328
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001327
BEFORE:
DANIEL NELSON
Friday, the 9th,
MEMBER
day of August, 2024
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order set out as Attachment “A” to this Order shall be in full force and effect for the purposes of governing the required procedure leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence on March 17, 2025.
“Euken Lui”
EUKEN LUI
REGISTRAR (A)
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.
Attachment A
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 09, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-001263
OLT-23-001327
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 as amended
Appellant:
Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject:
Appeal of the Decision of Council on an application to demolish or remove a building or structure
Description:
To demolish or remove the “Triple Dormitory” building within Camp 30 to accommodate the proposed residential redevelopment
Reference Number:
HPA2023-009
Property Address:
2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001263
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001263
OLT Case Name:
Lambs Road School Property Limited v. Clarington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Failure to make a decision
Description:
To permit a proposed multi-phase residential redevelopment of the subject lands with mixed density
Reference Number:
ZBA2022-0007
Property Address:
2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001327
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001327
OLT Case Name:
Lambs Road School Property Limited v. Clarington (Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description:
To permit a proposed multi-phase residential redevelopment of the subject lands with mixed density
Reference Number:
SC2022-0005
Property Address:
2020 Lambs Road
Municipality/UT:
Clarington/Durham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001328
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001327
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.
Organization of the Hearing
- The video hearing will begin on March 17, 2025 at 10 a.m. through the following video link:
https://meet.goto.com/996288525
Access code: 996-288-525
Parties 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 https://global.gotomeeting.com/install or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
Persons 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) 497-9391 or Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389. The access code is 996-288-525.
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 15 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 4. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Requirements Before the Hearing
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of witnesses on or before December 13, 2024, and in accordance with paragraph 26 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.
All expert reports are expected to conform to the Tribunal’s Guidance to Parties on Expert Reports and Other Disclosure Matters as set out in Appendix 2 hereto.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before January 17, 2025 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT Case Coordinator on or before January 24, 2025.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 15 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 15 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 15 below.
On or before February 7, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties, the participants, and to the OLT Case Coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
On or before February 7, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and the OLT Case Coordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
The Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT Case Coordinator a written response to any written evidence before February 21, 2025.
On or before February 10, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before March 3, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties, the participants, and the OLT Case Coordinator in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT Case Coordinator on or before March 3, 2025.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before March 7, 2025 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
At the time of cross-examination, the Parties shall provide to all Parties and the Tribunal, in a password protected format, any documents that will be used by the Party in cross-examination of an opposing Party's witness, unless the presiding Member directs otherwise. The password protected documents shall only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other Parties if they are introduced as evidence at the hearing.
All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
In lieu of a site visit, the parties are directed to jointly provide photographs of the property in accordance with the Tribunal’s Photos in Lieu of Site Visit: Guidance to Parties as set out in Appendix 1 hereto. Such photographs are not evidence but a joint submission of the parties to assist the Tribunal in understanding the context of the site.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
This Member is not seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
Attachment to Procedural Order
Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order
A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.
NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.
A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.
Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.
Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
Additional Information
A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.
The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF DATES
DATE
EVENT
December 13, 2024
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
January 17, 2025
Last date of Expert Witness Meetings
January 24, 2025
Agreed Upon Statement of Facts
February 7, 2025
Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
February 21, 2025
Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
February 10, 2025
Notification to Tribunal if all hearing dates required
March 3, 2025
Exchange of Visual Evidence (if any) and Joint Document Book
March 7, 2025
Hearing Plan
March 17, 2025
Hearing commences
ATTACHMENT 2
LIST OF PARTIES
Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Chris Barnett Evan Barz Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP 100 King Street West Suite 6200 Toronto, ON M5X 1B8 Email: cbarnett@osler.com Email: ebarz@osler.com
Municipality of Clarington
J. Mark Joblin Austin Ray Loopstra Nixon LLP 100 New Park Place Suite 303 Vaughan, ON L4K 0H9 Email: mjoblin@ln.law Email: aray@ln.law
Region of Durham
Robert Woon Chief Administrative Office – Legal Services Regional Municipality of Durham 605 Rossland Road East P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Email: robert.woon@durham.ca
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
Lambs Road School Property Ltd.
Municipality of Clarington
Region of Durham
Lambs Road School Property Ltd. Reply
ATTACHMENT 4
ISSUES LIST
NOTE: THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN ISSUE ON THIS ISSUES LIST DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL PARTIES AGREE THAT SUCH AN ISSUE IS APPROPRIATE OR RELEVANT FOR THE PROPER DETERMINATION OF THE APPEALS. THE EXTENT OF THE APPROPRIATENESS AND/OR RELEVANCE OF THE ISSUE MAY BE A MATTER OF EVIDENCE AND/OR ARGUMENT AT THE HEARING.
Issues of the Municipality of Clarington
Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Appeals
Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including but not limited to policies 1.6.6.7, 2.6.1, 2.6.3, and 2.6.4?
Do the applications conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including but not limited to policies 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 2.2.1(e), 3.2.7(2), 4.1 and 4.2.7?
Do the applications conform with the Durham Region Official Plan (ROP), including but not limited to policy 1.3.1(d), 2.1.3, 2.2.11, 2.3.43, and 2.3.29?
Do the applications conform with the Clarington Official Plan, including but not limited to Chapter 3, and including Sections 3.4.16, 8.2.1 and 8.2.2?
Do the applications conform with Special Policy Area F of the Official Plan (as amended by OPA 121), in particular:
a. Does the transition between the stacked townhouses and single detached dwellings in the Low-Density Residential designation of Area 1 conform to OPA 121?
b. Does the creation of ravine lots (lots backing onto the Soper Creek valleylands) conform to OPA 121?
c. Is the proposed surface parking adjacent to Lambs Road in conformity with OPA 121?
d. Do the proposed apartment buildings inappropriately impair views and vistas into the Heritage Park?
e. Is the proposed location of the stormwater management pond accessible and visible?
f. Does the proposal provide for adequate emergency access and active transportation?
g. Are the proposed setbacks to buildings adjacent to Lambs Road and Concession Street in conformity with OPA 121?
h. Are the sizes and locations of the proposed private amenity areas in conformity with OPA 121?
Is there adequate provision of stormwater and transportation infrastructure to support the proposed development?
Have the impacts of the proposed development been adequately studied, and will the impacts be appropriately mitigated, in particular:
a. Has an Intersection Control Study been submitted, and have intersections been appropriately studied?
b. Has an updated Traffic Impact Study demonstrating that the proposal does not negatively impact operation safety and capacity of the road network?
c. Is there a need for sight triangles at the intersection of Concession Street East and Street A, and/or at the intersection of Lambs Road and Street B?
d. Does Lambs Road require a road widening of 5.0 metres?
e. Has there been an adequate assessment of the hazards associated with the remnants of the dam and bridge structure?
f. Are the driveway entrances to Areas 3 and 4 accessible to Emergency Services, without a risk of blockage?
g. Is the proposed grading of the development supported by studies to show that it would not result in hazards from stormwater runoff?
- Can the proposed development meet applicable technical standards and guidelines, including:
a. Are the proposed retaining walls appropriate, and do they meet municipal standards and guidelines?
b. Has adequate tree preservation been accounted for in the proposed development?
c. Does the proposed development incorporate the required Low Impact Development measures, and have the type and location of these measures been adequately justified?
d. Has the proposed development demonstrated compliance with applicable standards for groundwater infiltration and monitoring?
e. Does the proposed development provide an appropriate minimum number of required parking spaces?
f. Does the proposed development within the medium density blocks appropriately reflect the requirements of the “Amenity Guidelines for Medium and High Density Residences”?
g. Has an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) been prepared that appropriately addresses limits of development, and Vegetation Protection Zones?
If the proposal is approved in principle, what are the appropriate zoning categories and performance standards for the zoning by-law?
If the proposal is approved, should the proposed zoning by-law amendment be subject to holding conditions in connection with provision of services, measures to protect natural areas, measures to mitigate the impact of development, or submission of technical studies?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision have appropriate regard for the matters described in the Planning Act Section 51(24) and, if so, what are the appropriate conditions of draft approval? Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, what conditions of draft approval should be included in respect of the conservation and treatment of the designated heritage buildings within the draft plan?
Do the applications represent good land use planning?
Ontario Heritage Act Application Appeal
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest described in Section 2 of the Planning Act?
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including but not limited to Section 2.6?
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including but not limited to policies 1.2.1, 4.1, and 4.2.7?
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building conform with the cultural heritage objectives of the Clarington Official Plan, including but not limited to Chapter 8?
Would a consent to demolish the Triple Dormitory building conform with the cultural heritage objectives of Special Policy Area F of the Official Plan (as amended by OPA 121), in particular Sections 16.7.1.2, 16.7.1.3, 16.7.2.1, 16.7.5.2, 16.7.8.1, 16.7.8.2, 16.7.9.3, 16.7.9.8, 16.7.11.3 and the Block Master Plan?
Will the proposed demolition of the Triple Dormitory building appropriately conserve the property’s identified Cultural Heritage Value and Interest (CHVI)?
Does the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) submitted in support of the application adequately justify the proposed demolition of the Triple Dormitory building?
Does the HIA include an acceptable evaluation of the impact of the proposed demolition?
Does the HIA include acceptable consideration of alternatives, mitigation, and conservation methods and recommendations?
Should the Tribunal Order that the Municipality of Clarington consent to the demolition of the Triple Dormitory building and, if so, what terms or conditions (if any) should be specified in the Order?
Issues of the Region of Durham
Does the proposed development have regard for matters of provincial interest identified in the Planning Act, including but not limited to sections 2(a), (d), (h), (j), and (p)?
Does the proposed plan of subdivision satisfy the criteria of subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (h), and (i)?
Is the proposed development consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 in particular policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.6, 1.4.3, 1.6.6, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.6?
Does the proposed development conform to the policies of A Place To Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, in particular policies 4.2.2.6?
Does the proposed development conform to and meet the overall goals, objectives and intent of the policies of the Durham Regional Official Plan, including, but not limited to policies 2.1.1, 2.3.4, 2.3.14, 2.3.15, 2.3.16, 2.3.41, 2.3.43, 2.3.49, 4.1.1, 7.3.9 a), 8B.2.1, 10A.2.2, 14.7.1 and 14.7.2?
If a draft plan of subdivision is approved, what are the appropriate draft plan conditions?