Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 30, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000314
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Applicant/Appellant: Sher Markham Inc.
Description: Development Charge Complaint
Reference Number: 9704 McCowan Road PLAN 21 139775
Property Address: 9704 McCowan Road
Municipality/UT: Markham/York
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000314
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000314
OLT Case Name: Sher Markham Inc. v. Markham (City)
Heard: July 29, 2024, In writing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Sher Markham Inc.
Shakeel J. Walji*
City of Markham
Andrew Baker
Michael Grant
DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Order
INTRODUCTION
1Sher Markham Inc. (“Appellant”) filed an appeal pursuant to s. 22(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. D.27, as amended (“DC Act”) with respect to the non-decisions by the City of Markham (“City”) and the Regional Municipality of York (“Region”) Councils regarding the Appellant’s complaint pertaining to a portion of Development Charges (“DC”) paid under protest.
2The appeal related to DCs affecting the Appellant’s development located at 9704 McCowan Road, in the City (“subject property”). The appeal was limited to the classification of 20 dwelling units (“disputed units”) out of a total of 131 dwelling units (“remaining units”) on the subject property.
3Following a written Decision and Tribunal Order issued by a panel differently constituted, the City submitted a Request for Review pursuant to s. 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, as amended and Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).
4Pursuant to the Tribunal’s disposition letter dated May 16, 2024, a rehearing was ordered and, in accordance with Rule 21 of the Rules, the rehearing was to be heard in writing.
5The matter originally involved three Parties: the Appellant, the City and the Region. The disposition letter restricted the rehearing solely to the portions of the Decision relating to the City’s Development Charge By-law (“DC By-law”) and as such, the Region did not