Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 27, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001120

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: COLLECDEV (8868 Yonge) GP Inc. and 1921318 Ontario Limited

Applicant: City of Richmond Hill

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 41

Description: Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan

Reference Number: By-law No. 55-23

Property Address: Lands generally comprised of the area to the north of Highway 7 at Yonge Street

Municipality/UT: City of Richmond Hill / Region of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001120

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001120

OLT Case Name: COLLECDEV (8868 Yonge) GP Inc. et al. v. City of Richmond Hill

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Richmond Hill

Request for: Request for Directions

Heard: June 19, 2024 by video hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
1921318 Ontario Limited	John Alati, Grace O’Brien
COLLECDEV (8868 Yonge) GP Inc.	Jason Park
City of Richmond Hill	Raj Kehar, Chantal DeSereville
Regional Municipality of York	Did not attend

DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS and G. Ross AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is a motion brought by the City of Richmond Hill (“City”), seeking various relief concerning the application of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act (“Act”). The underlying appeals of this matter, brought pursuant to s. 17(36) of the Act, relates to the passing of the City’s Official Plan Amendment 41 (“OPA 41”).

2In addition to such relief, the City is also seeking an Order from the Tribunal, on the consent of the parties, confirming that certain policies of OPA 41 are not under appeal and are thereby in full force and effect. This element of relief will be dealt with at the end of this decision, following the Tribunal’s analysis and findings respecting the application of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

Application of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act

3In general, s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act prohibits Official Plan Amendment appeals on specified grounds. Relevant to the present matter, these specified grounds include a prohibition against appealing policies concerning maximum densities and minimum or maximum heights on lands within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”). There is no dispute between the parties with respect to this general interpretation of the section. The Tribunal notes that both of the Appellants’ lands are located within PMTSA 49.

4There is a dispute, however, between the City and 1921318 Ontario Limited (“1921318”) with respect to the specific scope of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, and whether it is triggered by certain policies of OPA 41 that are under appeal by 9121318. This is the central question of the present Motion. The City takes the position that these particular policies of OPA 41 are captured by the meaning of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, and are consequently unappealable, while 1921318 takes the contrary position.

5Having heard the submissions and evidence of the City and 1921318, the Tribunal finds that this question turns on the interpretation of both s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act and the certain policies of OPA 41.

6The Tribunal notes that the parties confirmed that the above-described issues between the City and 9121318 do not touch on the appeal by COLLECDEV (8868 Yonge) GP Inc. (“COLLECDEV”). As a result, COLLECDEV appeared but did not meaningfully participate in the Motion.

7Regarding the materials before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is in receipt of a Motion Record, Factum, and Book of Authorities from the City, as well as the Responding Motion Record and Book of Authorities from 9121318. Included in the City’s Motion record is the sworn Affidavit of Leigh McGrath, and included in the Responding Motion Record of 9121318 is the sworn affidavit of Bruce Hall. The Tribunal finds that both witnesses are qualified as experts in land use planning, and may provide opinion evidence on that subject. However, given that the central question of the present motion is a question of law, their opinion evidence is of limited value.

8In terms of the specified relief being sought by the City as an outcome of this Motion, the City is asking the Tribunal to scope the issues raised by 1921318 (i.e., if the Tribunal finds that certain issues raised by 1921318 touch-on the prohibitions provided by s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, they ask the Tribunal to strike or ‘read down’ the issues within the parties’ issues list). The Tribunal declines to provide such relief, however, and instead elects to solely make a determination on the proper application of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act as it relates to the impugned policy provisions. The Tribunal declines to provide the broader scope of relief requested by the City because it finds that the parties will be in a position to collaboratively sort out which issues should be excluded and/or revised, if any, upon the Tribunal determining which OPA 41 policies are unappealable, if any, pursuant to s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

PROTECTED MAJOR TRANSIT STATION AREA 49 and OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 41

Figure 1: PMTSAs and Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan Overlay

9As background, the Tribunal recognizes that the York Region Official Plan (“YROP”) identifies the boundaries of PMTSA 41 (see Figure 1 above; PMTSA 41 is outlined in pink) and PMTSA 49 (see Figure 1 above; PMTSA 49 is outlined in blue). The present motion is concerned with PMTSA 49, since this is the PMTSA where 1921318’s lands are located (1921318’s lands are indicated within Figure 1 by straight-hatched lines in the purple area). In addition to identifying the boundaries of the PMTSAs, the YROP also establishes minimum numbers of persons and jobs per hectare within the PMTSAs. The YROP does not, however, identify maximum densities and/or minimum/maximum heights with respect to buildings and structures within the PMTSAs. The City submits that these limitations are dealt with in OPA 41.

10As highlighted by the City, OPA 41 recognizes the PMTSA boundaries and minimum numbers of persons and jobs per hectare, as established by the YROP. Additionally, OPA 41 creates boundaries for the “Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan Area” (“RHCSPA”; see Figure 1 above; RHCSPA is outlined in red) and identifies a number of “Character Areas” therein. Relevant to the present Motion, the “West of Yonge” Character Area is among those identified by OPA 41, and it encompasses 1921318’s lands (see Figure 1 above; the West of Yonge Character Area is filled purple). The Tribunal notes that all of the Character Areas identified by OPA 41 are fully encompassed within the boundaries of PMTSA 49.

11As emphasized by both the City and 1921318, there are two policies of OPA 41 that are particularly relevant to the present Motion: (1) Policy 10.3.4. “Integrating Higher Density Development”, and, more specifically, subsections 2-5 which speak to ‘angular plane’ requirements of Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan Area; and (2) Policy 10.3.6. “Regulating Density” and the related Schedule 2, which together purport to deal with density.

Figure 2: OPA 41, Schedule 2

Principles of Statutory Interpretation and Interpretation of Official Plan Policies

12To determine whether or not the OPA 41 policies articulated at para. 11, above, are captured by the meaning of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act and consequently unappealable, the analysis requires interpretation of both said OPA 41 policies and s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

13It is trite law that the modern principle of statutory interpretation is set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 SCR 27 (at para. 21):

Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

14These principles dictate how the Tribunal shall interpret s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, and are also notably applicable to Zoning By-laws in the municipal law context. However, jurisprudence is also clear that such principles of statutory interpretation are not necessarily applied in the same way with respect to Official Plan policies. This is because Official Plan policies are not statutes. Just the same, however, jurisprudence remains clear that the interpretation of Official Plan policies is also a question of law (see: Niagara River Coalition v. Niagara-on-the-Lake (Town), 2010 ONCA 173 at para. 45).

15Having considered such well-established jurisprudence, the Tribunal finds that the modern approach to statutory interpretation provides similar useful guidance, on a principled basis, to interpret Official Plan policies. In this way, the Tribunal finds that it makes sense to interpret Official Plan policies by examining policies’ text, context and purpose to determine its meaning. Consequently, in the present matter, the Tribunal elects to employ the modern approach to statutory interpretation, as set out in Rizzo Shoes, for the purpose of interpreting the meaning of the subject OPA 41 policies described above a para. 11.

Maximum height considerations and angular plane standards set by OPA 41

16There is no dispute that OPA 41 does not identify maximum heights within PMTSA 49 using a ‘flat-cap’ standard. What the Tribunal means by this, is that OPA 41 does not set a maximum height limitation in a specified number of meters, or by some other distinct flat measurement, that buildings are not permitted to surpass in the area. However, the City contends that the angular plane requirements set out in Policy 10.3.4 function to do the same thing, effectively identifying maximum heights by providing a formula to establish angular plane limits on any given property in the subject area. Consequently, the City submits that the angular plane requirements of Policy 10.3.4 cannot be appealed in accordance with s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

179121318’s position is that s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act speaks to a prohibition on appeals concerning height policies, not angular plane policies, and so the angular plane requirements set out in Policy 10.3.4 remain appealable. Additionally, while 9121318 acknowledges that the maximum height for a given building on a given parcel of land can be derived from OPA 41’s angular plane policies, it contends that said policies lack sufficient clarity and certainty for s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act to apply. This is because, 9121318 submits, the angular plane policies of OPA 41 constitute a moving target, insofar as maximum heights established by angular plane requirements are continually impacted by the ever-changing height context of surrounding developments.

18In reply, the City submits that they strategically elected to use angular plane requirements to regulate maximum heights within the PMTSA, which has the potential to evolve over time as the area develops, as opposed to rigid flat-caps across the area, because it provides a more effective method to allow higher buildings where it is appropriate, while also limiting heights where it is necessary to maintain adequate transitions from lower-rise neighbourhoods.

19As it relates to 9121318’s argument that the City’s angular plane policies lack sufficient clarity and/or certainty with respect to heights, the City submits that the formula provided by Policy 10.3.4 is sufficiently clear to enable planners to determine the maximum height permitted on any given portion of any given parcel of land, at any given time.

20Following these submissions, the Tribunal sought testimony from 9121318’s Land Use Planning Expert, Bruce Hall, to address whether the Policy 10.3.4 of OPA 41 provides a precise enough formula to ascertain the maximum permitted height of a building to be developed on his client’s property¹. Bruce Hall originally provided a sworn affidavit for the purpose of responding to the City’s Motion. He responded to the Tribunal’s questioning by confirming that he is “very confident [that he is able to] follow the direction and language provided [by OPA 41]”, to determine the maximum height permitted on 9121318’s property. Furthermore, he confirmed his opinion that maximum height is “an inevitable component” of calculating angular plane limitations.

21Having heard Bruce Hall’s evidence on this point, the Tribunal finds as a fact that Policy 10.3.4 of OPA 41 provides sufficient clarity and certainty with respect to the maximum heights of proposed buildings and structures on any given portion of any given parcel of land, at any given point in time. The Tribunal further accepts Bruce Hall’s opinion that maximum height is an inevitable component of calculating angular plane limitations.

22Given these findings of fact, the Tribunal now turns to consider the parties’ submissions regarding the intersecting meanings of Policy 10.3.4 of OPA 41 and s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

23To begin, the Tribunal is obliged to consider the plain meaning of the words of Policy 10.3.4 of OPA 41 and s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. In this sense, it is clear that Policy 10.3.4 speaks to angular plane requirements, while s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act specifically speaks to height limitations. If the interpretation analysis ended there, the Tribunal might find that Policy 10.3.4 does not trigger s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. However, because The Tribunal is also obliged to examine the context and purpose of the sections, the analysis continues.

24In this sense, the Tribunal finds that the surrounding context and apparent purpose of Policy 10.3.4 leads to a conclusion that the City’s angular plane requirements set out in Policy 10.3.4 of OPA 41 function to set height limitations as contemplated by s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. The Tribunal comes to this conclusion upon finding that there are no other provisions in OPA 41 which serve to set height limitations, so it is reasonable to conclude that Policy 10.3.4 is meant to serve such a function. Also, the Tribunal finds that it is reasonable to accept that the City strategically elected to employ angular plane policies to limit height, as opposed to setting a rigid flat-cap limitation, because such angular plane formulae have the benefit of allowing greater heights in proportion to existing heights of surrounding developments. Put another way, the method chosen by the City has greater potential to maximize heights within PMTSA 49, which serves the clear purpose of directing greater growth within major transit station areas.

25Turning to an examination of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that the text of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act is clear and unambiguous, insofar as it restricts appeals of height limitations within a PMTSA. Digging deeper, to consider the context and purpose of the section, the Tribunal finds that s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act is designed to prohibit appeals which may undermine prioritized growth-objectives within areas surrounding major transit stations. When considering this, the Tribunal accepts the City’s position and similarly finds that the law-makers would not have intended to exclude a formulaic approach to setting height restrictions, such as what Policy 10.3.4 provides, especially where it enables potentially greater growth than what could be achieved using a rigid flat-cap approach. In accordance with these findings, the Tribunal concludes that Policy 10.3.4 of OPA 41 is unappealable by virtue of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

Maximum density set by OPA 41

26There is no dispute that OPA 41 identifies maximum densities within both of the overlapping RHCSPA and PMTSA 49 areas. Such limitations are set out at Policy 10.3.6. “Regulating Density”, together with mapping illustrating various Character Areas at Schedule 2 (see Figure 2, above). The dispute between the parties respecting these policies revolves around the correct interpretation of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, insofar as the Tribunal is tasked with determining which maximum density or densities set out at Policy 10.3.6/Schedule 2 triggers s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

27Subsection 1 of Policy 10.3.6 makes reference to the mapping at Schedule 2, which outlines the different minimum and maximum densities (quantified in terms of Floor Space Index (“FSI”)) of the respective Character Areas (all of which are in PMTSA 49). For example, the lowest overall maximum density (3.0 FSI) is permitted in the West of Yonge Character area, where 1921318’s lands are located (see the purple filled area and corresponding legend depicted within Figure 2 above), and the greatest overall maximum density (5.5 FSI) is permitted within the “Red Maple” Character Area (see the yellow filled area and corresponding legend depicted within Figure 2 above).

28It is noteworthy that subsection 2of Policy 10.3.6 provides a degree of flexibility with respect to the maximum densities illustrated in Schedule 2. Pursuant to this subsection, these limits may be exceeded, “[depending] on the development site's individual characteristics and lot size, provided that the overall Character Area maximum density is maintained”. Consequently, if some parcels of land within the Character Area do not ‘max-out’ their density, there is potential for another property in the same area to achieve a higher density to make up the difference. This means that, as pointed out by 9121318, the maximum density for any particular parcel of land is dependent, in part, on the density achieved or planned for on surrounding parcels in the same area.

29Subsection 5 of Policy 10.3.6 provides a special policy relating to the ‘Eleanor Circle’ lands, which abut to the north of 9121318’s lands. This subsection states that the density permissions identified in Schedule 2 do not apply to the Eleanor Circle area until site-specific development criteria are met. Furthermore, should such development criteria be met, then the minimum and maximum densities that apply to the West of Yonge Character Area would apply and confer a minimum and maximum density onto these lands.

30Focusing first on subsection 1 of Policy 10.3.6, and corresponding Schedule 2 of OPA 41, the parties concur that it identifies maximum densities within PMTSA 49. There is also no dispute between them that it triggers s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act in some fashion. However, the parties differ in their interpretation and application of s. 17(36.1.4), as it relates to which maximum density or densities of the various Character Areas is/are unappealable.

31The City’s position is that each Character Area identifies a maximum density for its respective area, and each of these maximum densities are unappealable. As it relates to the West of Yonge Character area, where 1921318’s lands are located, the maximum density is 3.0 FSI (subject to subsection 2 of Policy 10.3.6), and the City contends that this limit is unappealable.

32In response, 9121318 contends that the maximum overall permitted density in PMTSA 49 is 5.5 FSI, which applies to the Red Maple Character Area. It is the greatest maximum density of any of the Character Areas in PMTSA 49. They argue that this limit, and only this limit, triggers s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. This is because, 9121318 submits, the maximum density of 3.0 FSI, featured in the West Yonge Character Area, does not represent the highest maximum density of the entire PMTSA, and the appeal-restricting function of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act is only meant to apply to the greatest maximum density within a given PMTSA.

33In reply, the City submits that there is nothing in s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act which prohibits identifying more than one maximum density within a single PMTSA, and each maximum identified for each given Character Area is perfectly valid and unappealable. The City adds that, if it was restricted from identifying more than one maximum density in a given PMTSA, in order to maintain the appeal-limits provided by s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, it would force the City to identify only the lowest appropriate maximum density for the entire area as a means to avoid undesirably high density in certain areas. This would, the City submits, undermine objectives to efficiently focus greater potential growth within PMTSAs.

34Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Tribunal accepts the position of the City insofar as subsection 1 of Policy 10.3.6 (and corresponding Schedule 2 of OPA 41) are unappealable pursuant to s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. The Tribunal comes to this conclusion as follows.

35Regarding the correct interpretation of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, the Tribunal finds nothing in the plain reading of the text of the statute that prohibits the City from identifying more than one density in a given PMTSA. For reference, the section states as follows:

[T]here is no appeal in respect of […] [p]olicies that identify the maximum densities that are authorized with respect to buildings and structures on lands in a protected major transit station area […]

36Additionally, upon examining the language of the section, the Tribunal finds that the section uses the plural, “densities”, as opposed to the singular “density”, suggesting a contemplation of multiple maximum densities within a single PMTSA, potentially triggering s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. This, of course, further supports the City’s interpretation, which the Tribunal accepts.

37Turning to the context and apparent purpose of the section, the Tribunal further accepts the City’s submissions and similarly finds that an interpretation which excludes multiple density areas in a single PMTSA would defeat the obvious benefits of strategically targeting greater or lesser densities in various parts of a PMTSA, which would serve the objective of focussing growth near major transit stations. Put another way, such an interpretation would dissuade a municipality from identifying a greater maximum density in a particular sub-area of a PMTSA, out of concern that a lesser maximum density in another part of the PMTSA could still be challenged.

38For clarity, this finding of the Tribunal means that the Tribunal rejects 9121318’s contention that only the greatest-maximum density of the Red Maple Character Area, being 5.5 FSI, is unappealable pursuant to s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

39As it relates to subsection 2, 9121318 takes issue with the policy framework provided therein with respect to density, insofar as it submits that it creates a moving target with respect to maximum density. 9121318 submits that, in the sense that a given parcel’s maximum density can change as other projects are developed around it, the policy remains appealable because it does not identify a certain maximum density within the PMTSA.

40The Tribunal notes that this position taken by 9121318 is difficult to reconcile with its concurrent acceptance that the 5.5 FSI maximum density of the Red Maple Character Area is unappealable pursuant to s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that such positions are inconsistent because all of the maximum densities for each of the Character Areas, including the Red Maple Character Area, are subject to the same formulaic approach set out in subsection 2 of Policy 10.3.6. The Tribunal finds that subsection 2 cannot be problematic in relation to the 3.0 FSI maximum density of the West Yonge Character Area, and be acceptable in relation to the 5.5 FSI maximum density of the Red Maple Character Area at the same time.

41Nevertheless, the City retorts by arguing that the impugned policy framework, including both subsections 1 and 2, establishes a formula for identifying a permitted density on any particular parcel of land, at any given point in time. It submits that this formula provides sufficient certainty with respect to identifying maximum density within PMTSA 49, and it is therefore unappealable.

42To address this point, the Tribunal again called upon the testimony from 9121318’s planner, Bruce Hall.² Upon questioning from the Tribunal, he confirmed that he understands the City’s formula and is capable of determining the maximum permitted density on his client’s lands.

43Given this evidence, the Tribunal rejects 9211318’s argument that subsection 2 of Policy 10.3.6 lacks sufficient precision to be unappealable pursuant to s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. The Tribunal further finds that subsection 2 of the policy works in conjunction with subsection 1 to identify maximum density within PMTSA 49 on any particular parcel of land, at any given point in time. The Tribunal further finds that 9121318’s position on this point is seriously weakened by its acknowledgement that the 5.5 FSI density of the Red Maple Character Area is unappealable pursuant to s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, given that this maximum density is equally subject to the formulaic provisions of subsection 2.

44To sum up the above conclusions concerning the appealability of subsections 1 and 2 of Policy 10.3.6, including Schedule 2 of OPA 41, the Tribunal finds these policies to be unappealable pursuant to s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. This includes each of the respective maximum densities for each of the Character Areas identified in Schedule 2.

45Turning now to subsection 5 of Policy 10.3.6, the Tribunal is again tasked with deciding whether or not this part of the policy also triggers s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act, insofar as it does or does not speak to identifying a maximum density within a PMTSA.

46Regarding this issue, 9121318 agrees that subsection 5 constitutes density policy, but it argues that it does not identify any particular maximum density, as contemplated by s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. Consequently, 9121318 argues that it remains appealable. Conversely, the City submits that subsection 5 of Policy 10.3.6 touches on maximum density by virtue of it referencing Schedule 2 of OPA 41. As a result, the City contends that it too is unappealable by virtue of s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act.

47On this point, the Tribunal does not accept the City’s position, finding that subsection 5 of Policy 10.3.6 does not speak to the maximum permitted density within PMTSA 49. The Tribunal finds that it neither speaks to maximum density though the text of the section, nor upon reading the provision together with its context and purpose. Rather, the Tribunal finds that subsection 5 provides policy conditions to bring Elenor Circle into the purview of density policies applicable to the West of Yonge Character Area. As stated above, those policy provisions (being subsections 1 and 2) are unappealable. However, these conditions to bring Elenor Circle within the purview of such density policies are not the same thing as identifying maximum density as contemplated by s. 17(36.1.4) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that subsection 5 of Policy 10.3.6 remains appealable.

Policies of OPA 41 not under appeal

48As mentioned at the outset of this decision, the City is also seeking an Order from the Tribunal, on the consent of the parties, confirming that certain policies of OPA 41 are no longer under appeal by 9121318 and are thereby in full force and effect. A draft Order to this effect, including a comprehensive list of such policies that are no longer under appeal, was jointly submitted by the parties to the Tribunal.

49The Tribunal has now reviewed this list, and finding that 9121318 has effectively withdrawn its appeal of those parts of OPA 41, as contemplated pursuant to s. 17(39) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that said policies are now in full force and effect.

ORDER

50The Tribunal Orders that the parties shall jointly prepare an Issues List to give effect to the above findings of the Tribunal. This Issues List shall form part of the parties’ draft Procedural Order, which will be filed with the Tribunal in advance of the already scheduled Case Management Conference. The Case Management Conference is scheduled to take place Monday, December 9, 2024 (details of this hearing are set out in the Tribunal’s Decision and Order issued May 16, 2024:COLLECDEV (8868 Yonge) GP Inc.et al. v City of Richmond Hill, 2024 CanLII 46462 (ON LT) at para 12-16). In the event that the Parties cannot agree on the contents of said Issues List, the Tribunal will deal with the dispute at the next, aforementioned Case Management Conference.

51AND the Tribunal Orders that the following policies of Official Plan Amendment No. 41 of the City of Richmond Hill are in full force and effect by operation of subsection 17(39) of the Planning Act:

• Section 2.2.1;

• Section 2.2.2;

• Section 2.2.4;

• Section 2.2.5;

• Section 2.2.6;

• Section 2.2.7;

• Section 2.2.8;

• The following sections of the RHC Secondary Plan:

o Section 10 (preamble);

o Section 10.1;

o 10.2.1 to 10.2.6, 10.2.8, 10.2.9 (not including 10.2 preamble);

o 10.3.3.1 a), 10.3.4.6, 10.3.5, 10.3.6.3, 10.3.6.4;

o 10.4.7, 10.4.8;

o 10.5.2, 10.5.3, 10.5.4, 10.5.6, 10.5.7;

o 10.6;

o 10.8; and

o 10.9.4;

• Schedule 1 to OPA 41;

• Schedule 2 to OPA 41 (which amends Part 1 Plan Schedule “A2” (Land Use)); and

• Schedule 3 to OPA 41.

52The Members are not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS

MEMBER

“G. Ross”

G. Ross

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.

Footnotes

1. 1The Tribunal did not seek similar testimony from the City’s expert because it already received evidence from Leigh McGrath, in support of the City’s position, through her sworn affidavit.
2. 2The Tribunal again did not seek similar testimony from the City’s expert because it already received evidence from Leigh McGrath, in support of the City’s position, through her sworn affidavit.