Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 20, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000272

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27

Appellant: Ledim Developments Ltd.

Subject: Appeal of Development Charge By-laws No. 13-2025

Description: Determination of the development charges

Reference Number: DC By-law 13-2025

Property Location: Town-Wide

Municipality/UT: Ajax/Durham

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000272

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000272

OLT Case Name: Ledim Developments Ltd. v. Ajax (Town)

BEFORE:

W. DANIEL BEST MEMBER

Monday, the 20th day of October, 2025

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the Decision issued on October 6, 2025, the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is scheduled to commence on March 16,2026. The Tribunal has set aside 10 day(s) for the hearing.

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN REGISTRAR

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: 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.

Schedule A

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 20, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000272

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27

Appellant: Ledim Developments Ltd.

Subject: Appeal of Development Charge By-laws No. 13-2025

Description: Determination of the development charges

Reference Number: DC By-law 13-2025

Property Location: Town-Wide

Municipality/UT: Ajax/Durham

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000272

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000272

OLT Case Name: Ledim Developments Ltd. v. Ajax (Town)

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. 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

2. The video hearing will begin on Monday, March 16, 2026 at 10 a.m. through the following video link:

https://meet.goto.com/558205565

Access code: 558-205-565

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) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 558-205-565.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is ten (10) 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 Procedural Order deadlines are found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 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.

7. The meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are identified in Attachment 5.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Monday, November 3, 2025, and in accordance with paragraph 22 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Tuesday, December 9, 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 Friday, January 9, 2026.

12. 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 14 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.

13. 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 14 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 14 below.

14. On or before Monday, January 19, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT Case Coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before Monday, January 19, 2026, participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Monday, February 9, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before Monday, February 23, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. On or before Monday, February 9, 2026, the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT Case Coordinator a written response to any written evidence.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT Case Coordinator on or before Monday, March 2, 2026.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, March 6, 2026 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.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. 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.

24. 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 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
November 3, 2025	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
December 9, 2025	Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or prior to this date, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing
January 9, 2026	Agreed Statement of Facts and Issues to be filed
January 19, 2026	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
February 9, 2026	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
February 9, 2026	Deadline to advise OLT of any reductions in hearing time
February 23, 2026	Exchange of Visual Evidence (if any)
March 2, 2026	Finalize and submit Joint Document Book
March 6, 2026	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
March 16, 2026	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES

1. Town of Ajax

Andrew Biggart Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart Barristers & Solicitors 303 – 1 Eva Road Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5 Email: abiggart@ritchieketcheson.com Tel: 416-622-6601 Ext. 1003

2. Ledim Developments Ltd.

Patrick Harrington Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Email: pharrington@airdberlis.com Tel: 416-865-3424

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the Tribunal.

DRAFT ISSUES LIST OF LEDIM DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

Grants and Funding

1. Is the Town required to account for grants and/or funding received from the Federal Housing Accelerator Fund and/or the Provincial Building Faster Fund (or similar programs) in the calculation of its DCs?

2. If the answer to #1 is “yes”, has the Town appropriately accounted for grants/funding that the Town has either received or is eligible to receive?

Parks and Recreation

3. What assumptions did the Town make in projecting the replacement costs for community centres and did these assumptions include appropriate values for land costs¹?

4. The Town’s historical inventory includes space in four schools (Westney, Lakeside, Dennis O’Connor and Lincoln Alexander). Included in this inventory is space for staff rooms, cafeteria, halls and other non-classroom space, all of which is used to increase the relevant funding envelope. Is it reasonable and in keeping with the DCA for the Town to include the replacement costs of this space in the Town’s historical inventory of Recreation Facilities?

5. The Town’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan does not include a provision for Additional Community Recreation Space and Town Council has not appear to have indicated an intent to fund this project. Consequently, on what basis has the Town included a provision for Additional Community Recreation Space in the Parks and Recreation Services Capital Program? If the basis for inclusion is reasonable and in keeping with the DCA, are the estimated capital costs associated with this Additional Community Recreation Space reasonable?

6. Has the Town appropriately made deductions for the Audley Recreation Centre to reflect (a) the inclusion of debt for this facility in the capital program and (b) the portion of this facility that is committed excess capacity? If not, should the Town’s LOS inventory be adjusted to reflect the proportion of the Audley Recreation Centre that is being funded by growth?

7. Are the capital costs, BTE and PPB allocations for the following projects reasonable:

a. Parkland Development and Trails (Projects #1 - #19)²,

b. Audley Recreation Centre Phase 3 (Project #20)³,

c. St. Andrews Expansion (Project #29)⁴,

d. Ajax Community Centre Major Renovations and Upgrades (Project #30)⁵ and

e. Rotary Park Pavilion Replacement and Expansion (Project #32)⁶?

Fire

8. The Town has applied a 5% BTE to some, but not all, fire vehicles and equipment. No justification has been offered for the assumption of a 5% BTE. Has the Town’s applied a reasonable BTE assumption and has this assumption been applied consistently in the DC Background Study?

9. Has the Town appropriately made deductions for its Fire Hall Renovations and Fire Headquarters to reflect (a) the inclusion of debt for these facilities in the capital program and (b) the portion of these facilities that is committed excess capacity? If not, should the Town’s LOS inventory be adjusted to reflect the proportions of these facilities that are being funded by growth?

10. With respect to “Fire HQ – Additional FF&E”, the Town has included $5.1M for additional fixtures, furniture and equipment. The Town has also included an 80% BTE allocation. How were these estimated costs determined, are they reasonable and is the BTE assumption associated with this project reasonable?

Library

11. The need for additional library space is not reflected in the Town’s Master Plan or 10-Year Capital Plan. It is accordingly not clear on what basis the Town has included provision for Additional Facility Space and Additional Collection Materials in its DC Background Study. There is also no information provided about these facilities, including the amount of space, the location of the space and whether land costs were assumed, etc.

a. Has Town Council indicated an intent to fund these projects?

b. What assumptions did the Town make in terms of the required amount of space, the amount/location of land and the potential for intensifying existing facilities to accommodate the desired additional space?

c. What proportion of this additional space is directly attributable to growth?

12. The value of land assumed for the Main Library Branch is $21.1M. However, the Main Branch Library site also includes Ajax Town Hall as well as a pool facility. Is the value of land assumed for the Main Branch Library inclusive of the Town’s co-located facilities, and if so, is this assumption reasonable?

Studies

13. Some of the Town’s studies (for example, the Community Risk Assessment and the Older Adults Recreational Service) assume a 20% BTE, but would appear to benefit the entire Town. Are the Town’s BTE allocations for its growth-related studies reasonable and in keeping with the DCA?

Roads

14. Are the Town’s BTE and PPB allocations applied to projects included in the capital program for Services Related to a Highway reasonable and in compliance with the DCA?

15. How did the Town generally determine its BTE allocations for its active transportation projects (e.g. bike lanes, cycle tracks, and paved shoulders) where these projects are within or adjacent to existing neighbourhoods?

16. Are the Town’s capital costs, BTE and PPB assumptions/allocations for the following roads-related projects reasonable and in compliance with the DCA:

a. Rossland Road Widening (Projects 1, 2 and 3)⁷?

b. Audley Road (Projects 4, 9 and 17)⁸?

c. Lake Ridge Road Reconstruction (Project 5)⁹?

d. Chambers Drive (Projects 6, 10 and 11)¹⁰?

e. Achilles Road (Projects 7 and 18)¹¹?

f. Church Street reconstruction and widening (Projects 12, 15 and 16)¹²?

g. Harwood Avenue Widening (Project 14)¹³?

h. Hunt Street Extension¹⁴?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Town of Ajax (Municipality)

2. Ledim Developments Ltd. (Appellant)

3. Town of Ajax (Municipality) – In Reply (if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

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.

Footnotes

1. 1The value of land for community centres is very high. It is unclear if this value includes parks (DCs cannot be used to purchase parkland). It is also not clear if the parkland development costs for parks adjacent to recreation centres are being double-counted with parkland development in the Town’s historical inventory.
2. 2There is currently not enough information on the size of these parks to determine if the capital costs are reasonable. Also, it is not clear whether there is double-counting with the Audley Recreation Centre Skate Trail.
3. 3The Town’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan indicates that the two new ice rinks in Audley Phase 3 could replace one ice rink elsewhere, which should increase the BTE allocation for this project. The Master Plan also indicates that the new rinks are required over the “long term”, which raises the issue of PPB.
4. 4The Town’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies this project as a “relatively minor improvement”, but then assigns a capital cost of $34M with 63% allocated to growth. This cost and assignment to growth have not been justified.
5. 5As noted in Issue #5, the Town’s Parks and Recreation Plan does not include a provision for additional community recreational space and Town Council does not appear to have indicated an intent to fund this project. Consequently, it is unclear (a) how these capital costs were determined and (b) whether the assumed allocation to growth is reasonable.
6. 6See Issue #5 and Note 5.
7. 7The Town’s Transportation Master Plan includes this project, but assumes a significantly lower capital cost. Also, the capital costs assumption of $7.7M per km is potentially higher than the replacement costs included in the historical inventory. It is also not clear if (a) the capital costs include land acquisition and (b) whether the additional lanes can be accommodated within the existing boulevard.
8. 8This project does not include an overpass for Highway 401, but does include an overpass for the CPR level crossing north of Rosland. As this is currently a level crossing, it should have a significant BTE component.
9. 9This project does not appear to be growth-related. Also, this appears to be a boundary road and it is not indicated whether the Town of Whitby is (or should be) paying a portion of the costs. Finally, it is not clear if this project is already covered by the Town’s active transportation infrastructure assumptions (i.e. double-counting).
10. 10These projects are in the Town’s Transportation Master Plan, but do not appear in the Town’s capital program. The costs indicated in the DC Background Study are significantly higher than the costs indicated in the TMP.
11. 11These projects are in the Town’s Transportation Master Plan, but only one of these projects appears in the Town’s capital program. The costs indicated in the DC Background Study are significantly higher than the costs indicated in the TMP.
12. 12These projects are assumed to have a small BTE, but would appear to benefit the existing surrounding neighbourhoods.
13. 13See Note 12.
14. 14There is not enough public information about this project, including whether it includes bike lanes and other active transportation or the cost breakdown for land acquisition and rail alignment. Additionally, the project only has a 5% BTE allocation but would appear to benefit the existing surrounding neighbourhoods. Also as this project will benefit the GO Secondary Plan and Downtown Area, which is a longer-term build-out, meaning the projects should have a PPB component.