Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 26, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000063

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(6.2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

Subject: Motion for directions to determine the completeness of an application

Description: Secondary Plan for the Twenty Road West (TRW Block) Block

Property Address: Lands bounded by Twenty Road West to the north, Upper James Street to the east, Dickenson Road to the south, and Glancaster Road to the west

Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000063

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000063

OLT Case Name: Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. v. Hamilton (City)

Heard: August 14, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc.

Joel Farber Matthew Rutledge Ira Kagan

City of Hamilton

Peter Krysiak

1The matter before the Tribunal is a Motion for Directions (“Motion”) to determine whether an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) application (“Application”) submitted by Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. (“UWSLG”) to the City of Hamilton (“City”) should be deemed complete effective December 14, 2023, or such other date as may be determined.

2Given the submissions of the Parties as summarized below, the Tribunal finds that the Application should be deemed complete effective December 14, 2023.

BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

3The Application was filed to:

i. amend portions of the Urban Hamilton Official Plan (“UHOP”) (including the Airport Employment Growth District Secondary Plan (“AEGD SP”) and the Glanbrook Secondary Plan) and the Rural Hamilton Official Plan (“RHOP”) (“Policy Amendments”); and

ii. create a Secondary Plan (“Proposed SP”) for certain lands within the area bound by Twenty Road West, Upper James Street, Dickenson Road, and Glancaster Road (“TRW Block”).

4The Policy Amendments apply to substantially all of the lands within the TRW Block measuring approximately 390 hectares (“ha”) (“Application Lands”) and the Proposed SP applies to approximately 280 ha within the TRW Block (“SP Lands”), and includes the lands owned by UWSLG, municipally known as 9285, 9445, 9511, 9625 and 9751 Twenty Road West and 555 Glancaster Road. The figure below shows the extent of the Application Lands (outlined in red) and the SP Lands (outlined in blue).

Source: Affidavit of John Corbett

5The following chronology sets out the timeline of key planning approvals related to relevant amendments to the UHOP and the RHOP, as well as of the processing of the Application.

6On November 4, 2022, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“Minister") approved Amendment No. 167 (“UHOPA 167”) to the UHOP and approved Amendment 34 (“RHOPA 34”) to the RHOP with modifications, resulting in a portion of the Application Lands being brought into the City's urban area (“Whitebelt Lands”).

7Following a formal consultation meeting (“Preconsultation”) with the City on April 26, 2023, the City issued a Formal Consultation Document (“FCD”) that identified the reports, studies, and plans that were required to accompany the Application.

8On November 21, 2023, the Application was filed with the City along with various documents and material.

9Subsequently, on December 6, 2023, Bill 150, Planning Statue Law Amendment Act, 2023 (“Bill 150”) came into effect, resulting in the Minister's decisions on UHOPA 167 and RHOPA 34 being deemed never to have been made, and instead, approving the City-adopted UHOPA 167 with modifications and the City-adopted RHOPA 34 without modifications, thereby returning the Whitebelt Lands to a rural designation outside the urban boundary.

10On December 8, 2023, the City issued an initial Notice of Incomplete Application (“Initial NIA”) with comments advising that certain information and materials remained outstanding relating to the following items:

Agricultural Impact Assessment (“AIA”);
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (“CHIA”);
Commercial Needs and Impact Assessment (“CNIA”);
Community Infrastructure Assessment Report (“CIAR”);
Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”);
Linkage Assessment (“LA”);
Proposed SP Terms of Reference (“SP TOR”);
Stage 2 Archaeology Assessment (“Stage 2 AA”);
Housing Report;
Karst Assessment (“KA”);
Final Secondary Plan Report (“SP Report”); and
Public Consultation Summary (“PC Summary”).

11On December 14, 2023, UWSLG responded to the Initial NIA by letter to the City, providing additional materials and information or in some cases challenging the City's position that materials were missing or inadequate ("UWSLG Response").

12On December 19, 2023, the City issued a revised Notice of Incomplete Application (“Revised NIA”) with comments related to the AIA, the CHIA, and the CIAR removed, additional comments related to the remaining items, and comments on the following additional items (“Added Items”):

Water and Wastewater Servicing Master Plan (“WWSMP”);
Financial Impact Analysis (“FIA”);
Urban Design and Architectural Guidelines;
Financial Agreement for peer review fees; and
Application signatures and authorization.

13The Added Items were not included in the Initial NIA as reasons to deem the Application incomplete.

14The Application was revised on May 16, 2025 (“Revised Application”) to limit the Proposed SP component to approximately 110 ha (“Revised Proposed SP”), while the lands subject to the Application remained unchanged. The Revised Application continued to propose certain revised policies and schedules of the AEGD SP and included an updated draft OPA, an updated Planning Justification Report (“PJR”), and updated reliance letters with respect to consultant reports.

15It is also relevant to note that Whitebelt Lands remain subject to appeals (under Tribunal case number OLT-24-000748) with respect to applications for an urban boundary expansion (“UBE” / “UBE Applications”) that were filed prior to their inclusion within the urban boundary through the approval of UHOPA 167 and RHOPA 34. These appeals, which were filed after Bill 185, Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 came into force, allowing appeals of proposed UBEs, continue to be valid and survive the effect of Bill 150 returning the Whitebelt Lands to a rural designation outside the urban boundary.

16The UBE appeals are scheduled for an eight-week merit hearing commencing on Monday, April 13, 2026, and are not subject to this proceeding.

THE MOTION

Moving Party

17The materials before the Tribunal from UWSLG include:

i. Motion Record (Exhibit 3), containing the Notice of Motion, and Affidavit of John Corbett, land use planner, sworn on July 25, 2025; and

ii. Affidavit of Service (Exhibit 1) for the service of the Motion Record on July 25, 2025.

18UWSLG brought the Notice of Motion seeking:

i. a determination by the Tribunal, pursuant to s. 22(6.2) of the Planning Act (“Act”), that the Application is deemed complete effective December 14, 2023 or such other or earlier date as the Tribunal determines;

ii. a determination by the Tribunal, pursuant to s. 22(6.2) of the Act, that the alleged outstanding information and materials are not in fact outstanding because they:

a. have in fact been provided; and/or

b. are not prescribed by the Act and/or are not required by the UHOP; and/or

c. are not reasonable to be required at this time;

iii. an Order granting the costs of the Motion to UWSLG; and

iv. such further and other relief as Counsel for UWSLG may request and the Tribunal may permit.

Moving Party Submissions - General

19UWSLG submitted that, based on the grounds outlined in subsection ii. of paragraph [18] and the submissions related to the items in the Initial NIA, addressed in paragraphs [29] through [76], the Application should be deemed complete as of December 14, 2023, or any such other or earlier date as the Tribunal determines.

Respondent

20The materials before the Tribunal from the City include:

i. Responding Motion Record (Exhibit 4), containing the Notice of Response to Motion, and Affidavit of Dave Heyworth, land use planner, sworn on August 7, 2025; and

ii. Affidavit of Service (Exhibit 2) for the service of the Responding Motion Record on August 7, 2025.

21In its Responding Motion Record, the City requested:

an Order dismissing the Motion; and
such further and other relief as the City may advise and the Tribunal may permit.

Respondent Submissions - General

22The City submitted that s. 22(5) of the Act provides the City with discretion to determine the information it requires for an OPA. The City added that the outstanding information and material requirements are reasonable because they contain data required for the City to make an informed decision and would facilitate the timely processing of the Application.

23The City cited s. 22(6) of the Act which allows the City to refuse to accept or further consider an OPA application where the information and material required under ss. (4) and (5) have not been provided.

24The City clarified that it is now only requiring 10 of the items, as listed in the Affidavit of Mr. Heyworth and addressed below, with the balance of the items having either been satisfied or deemed not applicable.

25The City takes the position that its submission requirements are relevant to the particulars of the Application, as evidenced by the rationale of the requirements that remain and the policy requirements in the UHOP. The City further submitted that the requested information is necessary for it to adequately review and consider the Application. Further, it submitted that the Application is incomplete relative to material required in the UHOP and through the Preconsultation, and that certain studies need to be updated to properly reflect the Revised Application.

26With respect to legal requirements versus the City’s guidelines for the document requirements for a complete application, the City submitted that simply because something has been submitted, does not mean that it is sufficient. It asserted that sufficiency matters, and that, although the UHOP establishes the legal requirements, the guidelines establish the required content of the documents. It concluded, albeit without cogent reasoning, that if it were sufficient for a document to be submitted in a form the applicant considers appropriate, then a contested hearing would be unnecessary on the basis that relief should be granted solely by virtue of the document’s submission.

Complete Application Requirements – Initial Notice of Incomplete Application

27The following provides a summary of the submissions of UWSLG and the City on each item listed in paragraph [10] related to the Initial NIA (other than items 1, 2, and 4 related to the AIA, the CHIA, and the CIAR, which are no longer in issue), followed by the findings of the Tribunal.

28The items listed in paragraph [12], related to the Revised NIA, are addressed separately in paragraphs [77] to [83].

Item 3 – Commercial Needs and Impact Assessment

29In both the Initial NIA and the Revised NIA, the City specified that the author must be noted and the CNIA must be signed by its author. In its Responding Motion Record, the City additionally noted that a reliance letter (“RL”), based on the updated Proposed SP, had not been provided. The City did not raise any concerns regarding the adequacy or completeness of the CNIA.

30UWSLG advised the City on December 14, 2023, that Ward Land Economics Ltd. (“WLE”) authored the CNIA, and that the author was unavailable but could provide a signature at a later date, if required. The Affidavit of Mr. Corbett provides additional specificity, that Mimi Ward of WLE was the author. It is uncertain if the CNIA has since been signed and resubmitted. It was UWSLG’s submission that this item is both a silly and frivolous reason to not deem the Application complete.

31The City noted that the CNIA had not been resubmitted with a signature, but that this deficiency could readily be cured. The City further noted that an RL, based on the updated Proposed SP, had not been submitted; that this submission requirement remains outstanding; and that, as a result, the City is unable to rely on the CNIA.

32The Tribunal finds that this item can be easily remedied through a resubmission of the CNIA with signatures and an updated RL. On its own, this item does not constitute sufficient grounds for the City to deem the Application incomplete, as the requirement for the submission of a CNIA was technically met, and the requirement does not extend to the City’s ability to rely on it.

Items 5 and 6 – Environmental Impact Study and Linkage Assessment

33In both the Initial NIA and the Revised NIA, the City specified that terms of reference (“TOR”) have not been approved for both the EIS and the LA, and that there are additional content and clarification requirements.

34UWSLG submitted that these items are not a reason to deem the Application incomplete. It advised that the TOR for the EIS also applies to the LA, and that it was submitted to the City on July 17, 2023, with the comments from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority ("NPCA") and the City (collectively “Agency Comments”) incorporated into the EIS and the LA. UWSLG submitted that it was unnecessary for the TOR to be updated and recirculated for formal approval, as incorporating the Agency Comments in the reports ‘achieves the same outcome’.

35UWSLG cited policy F.3.2.1.5 of the UHOP, which states that a TOR for an EIS “shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with the relevant Conservation Authority”. It submitted that UWSLG’s ecological consultant consulted with the City and the NPCA, and incorporated the Agency Comments into the reports, in accordance with Policy F.3.2.1.5.

36Further, UWSLG noted that the UBE Applications were deemed complete without the TOR for the related EIS being approved by the City.

37Regarding the scope of the natural heritage inventories, it was UWSLG’s submission that it pertains to the merits of the matter rather than completeness. Further UWSLG indicated that extensive fieldwork had been undertaken within the preceding five years of the filing date of the Application, and updated ecological surveys are currently underway and will be provided to the City once complete.

38It was UWSLG’s submission that the timing of the ecological surveys in relation to the Application submission date is not a matter that determines the completeness of the Application but might be relevant to the merits of the appeal.

39The City submitted that the EIS TOR had not been approved due to it referencing a different study area than that identified in the EIS. The City also submitted that the field work associated with the EIS and the LA is outdated, and ongoing technical work has not been updated. In this respect, the City requires an update on both of these items.

40The Tribunal finds that, as there is no specific wording in the UHOP requiring the EIS TOR to be formally approved before the Application can be deemed complete. In this respect, the EIS TOR is a tool to address content of the report, not the completeness of the Application. The Tribunal agrees with UWSLG that it does not, on its own, constitute sufficient grounds for the City to deem the Application incomplete, as the requirement for the submission of the report was technically met. Furthermore, while approval of the EIS TOR remains necessary, it can be accomplished after the Application is deemed complete.

Items 7, 11, and 12 – Secondary Plan Terms of Reference, Final Secondary Plan Report, and Public Consultation Summary

41Despite Mr. Heyworth’s Affidavit claiming an SP TOR has not been provided, the City specified, in both the Initial NIA and the Revised NIA, that a draft SP TOR was submitted and detailed comments were provided by the City, but approval of the SP TOR is required and remains outstanding.

42Further, the City noted that a final SP Report was not submitted and, although it is permitted to be combined with the PJR, certain required components related to public consultation are not contained in the PJR, and appendices are missing from the PC Summary.

43With respect to the SP TOR, UWSLG submitted that it was unnecessary for it to be updated and recirculated for formal approval, as the SP TOR was submitted on August 3, 2023, and the City’s comments were incorporated into the materials filed in support of Application. It was UWSLG’s position that incorporating the City’s comments in the reports ‘achieves the same outcome’ and achieves the intent and purpose of policy F.1.2.3 in the UHOP requiring the SP TOR to be approved.

44Further, UWSLG submitted that approval of the SP TOR is not a reasonable requirement for the Application to be deemed complete, and is not required to process the Application, considering the City’s comments are incorporated in the SP Report.

45UWSLG noted that the UBE Applications were deemed complete without the TOR for the related EIS being approved by the City.

46UWSLG further submitted that an individual PJR, an individual SP Report, a separate PC Summary outlining the required components, and the appendices were submitted to the City. It proffered that the PC Summary provided all reasonably required information for the purpose of a complete application. It further submitted that all requested information has been provided, albeit in a form different than what the City might prefer, and that this is not a reasonable reason to deem the Application incomplete.

47The City relied on the wording of policy F.1.2.3 requiring the SP TOR to be submitted to deem the Application complete. The policy requires that any privately initiated secondary plans shall require a TOR “approved by the City prior to initiating work on any required studies, undertaking public consultations or initiating any other work related to the preparation of a secondary plan. The terms of reference shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Chief Planner”.

48With respect to the public engagement information, the City submitted that it was not included in the initial PJR. Nonetheless, the City conceded that, if it is included elsewhere, “practicality trumps technicality” and it need not be provided separately.

49The Tribunal finds that, as there is no specific wording in the UHOP requiring the SP TOR to be formally approved before the Application can be deemed complete. In this respect, the SP TOR is a tool to address content of the Proposed SP, not the completeness of the Application. The Tribunal agrees with UWSLG that, since the City’s comments were incorporated into the materials filed in support of the Application, it does not, on its own, constitute sufficient grounds for the City to deem the Application incomplete, as the requirement for the submission of the report was technically met. Furthermore, while approval of the SP TOR remains necessary, it can be accomplished after the Application is deemed complete.

Item 8 – Stage 2 Archaeology Assessment

50In both the Initial NIA and the Revised NIA, the City specified that a Stage 2 AA has not been submitted and that a letter submitted by UWSLG indicating that a consultant had been retained does not fulfill the Application submission requirements.

51UWSLG submitted that, pursuant to s. 22(4) of the Act, the prescribed information and material required for OPAs, as set out in Schedule 1 of Ontario Regulation 543/06 (“O. Reg. 543/06”), does not include an archaeological assessment (“AA”).

52UWSLG also submitted that, pursuant to s. 22(5) of the Act, other information or material may be required by the City but only if the UHOP contains provisions relating to such requirements and that an AA is not included in policy F.1.2.8(g) of the UHOP which lists the study requirements for a privately initiated secondary plan for urban expansion areas.

53Additionally, UWSLG submitted that policy F.3.2.4.1 of the UHOP confirms that AAs only need to be prepared where they are required and policy B.3.4.4.3 provides an AA will not be required if the development proposed does not involve any site alteration or soil disturbance. UWSLG submitted that a Stage 2 AA should not be required for the Application to be deemed complete given the Secondary Plan and OPA do not provide permissions for any development that involves site alteration or soil disturbance and only provides for land use policies and mapping.

54UWSLG further submitted that, given the size of the area subject to the Application, it is not reasonable for the City to require a Stage 2 AA to deem the Application complete, and that the City would be able to require such a study as a condition of a future Draft Plan of Subdivision application or Zoning By-law Amendment application.

55Finally, UWSLG noted that, the City previously adopted the AEGD SP and related zoning by-law, which designated and zoned the Application Lands for urban uses (prior to the Whitebelt Lands being removed through a settlement of the AEGD SP at the Tribunal). UWSLG submitted that the City was therefore satisfied with the AAs available at the time, or, alternatively, it was satisfied that AAs could be obtained in the context of any future development applications.

56It was UWSLG’s position that, since an AA is neither prescribed under the Act, nor a requirement under UHOP, the City is not entitled to require one to deem the Application complete.

57The City submitted that an AA was identified as a submission requirement in the FCD and that policy F.3.4.4.3 [sic¹] of the UHOP states that the City may require an AA where the lands in an area of archaeological potential as identified on Appendix F‑4 of the UHOP, and that the Application Lands are so identified on Appendix F-4.

58The City further noted that the requirement for a Stage 2 AA can be waived if the Secondary Plan contains policies to ensure no infrastructure installment or development will take place until a Stage 2 AA is submitted and approved.

59The Tribunal agrees with UWSLG that the City is not entitled to require a Stage 2 AA as a condition to deem the Application complete. The Act and the UHOP do not specifically require a Stage 2 AA, and the City demonstrated this through the processing of the AEGD SP. Requiring a Stage 2 AA for the Application would impose a different standard of submission requirements than those applied to the AEGD SP application and the UBE Applications.

60Furthermore, the Tribunal notes that, although the extent of the lands affected by the original Application are partially located in an area of Archaeological Potential as identified on Appendix F-4 of the UHOP, the lands subject to the Revised Proposed SP, as part of the Revised Application, is not shown to be within an area of Archaeological Potential on Appendix F-4.

61The Tribunal makes no findings on the need for the Secondary Plan to contain policies to ensure no infrastructure installment or development will take place until a Stage 2 AA is submitted and approved.

Item 9 – Housing Report

62In both the Initial NIA and the Revised NIA, the City specified that a Housing Needs Assessment was submitted but does not contain the required information as per the City’s Housing Report guidelines.

63UWSLG submitted that the UWSLG Response stated that a Housing Report was submitted with the initial Application submission, but that the level of detailed required in the City’s Housing Report TOR would be more suitable to be required at the Draft Plan of Subdivision stage “including (but not limited to) providing detailed information on number of bedrooms, anticipated price ranges, secondary dwelling unit potential, unit designs, affordable housing unit details, financial or land contribution calculations to affordable housing etc.”. Further, UWSLG indicated that the final Housing Report was submitted to the City with updates to include additional information necessary to inform the policies of the Secondary Plan and that the PJR contains additional details pertaining to the housing assumptions and the proposed dwelling unit mix.

64UWSLG submitted that, the City would be entitled to take the position that the Housing Report is not sufficient to approve the Application, even if it were to deem it complete. Further, UWSLG proffered that the City is conflating the test of completeness with the merits of the Application and applying a more stringent test to completeness than is warranted and that this is not a reasonable reason to deem the Application incomplete.

65The City submitted that the submitted Housing Report does not include the required basic housing information identified in these guidelines for the following:

a. total number of residential units;

b. description of building type;

c. proposed tenure;

d. number of units by unit type;

e. gross floor area range of units, for each unit type;

f. anticipated price range or rent level range of units, for each building type and unit type (only required for Site Plan Control and Draft Plan of Subdivision applications);

g. secondary dwelling unit potential.

66The City further submitted that an updated Housing Report is critical to the City’s review of the Application to determine whether the proposed mix and type of dwellings is consistent with the housing policies of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and the UHOP.

67The Tribunal finds that the City’s concern with the Housing Report is relative to its content, not the completeness of the Application, and it does not, on its own, constitute sufficient grounds for the City to deem the Application incomplete, as the requirement for the submission of the report was technically met.

Item 10 – Karst Assessment

68In both the Initial NIA and the Revised NIA, the City noted that a KA had not been submitted and that, despite a letter having been submitted indicating that a KA is not applicable, such was not discussed with the City prior to the submission to determine if a KA is no longer required.

69UWSLG submitted that their geotechnical consultant provided correspondence explaining that, despite being in an area of potential karst based on the rock type, “no bedrock outcrops were observed”, “bedrock was not encountered in any of the thirty-three (33) boreholes advanced throughout the property”, and “given the relative overburden thickness, an assessment of karst features is not considered to be applicable at the site”.

70UWSLG also submitted that a KA is not prescribed under O. Reg. 543/06 as a requirement for OPAs, nor it is included in policy F.1.2.8(g) of the UHOP which lists the study requirements for a privately initiated secondary plan for urban expansion areas. Since a KA is neither prescribed under the Act nor a requirement under UHOP, UWSLG submitted that the City is therefore not entitled to require it to deem the Application complete.

71UWSLG furthered that, even if a KA was required under the UHOP, it would not be a reasonable request given its geotechnical consultant has already confirmed that karst features are not applicable for the Application Lands. Additionally, its environmental consultants undertook ecological surveys that address the concern raised by the City that “quickly disappearing water could be representative of a karst feature (sink hole)”. Through further field assessments, it was determined that “the water observed was simply flowing into a broken tile drain”.

72UWSLG noted that a KA was not undertaken by the City before it adopted the AEGD SP, and the UBE Applications were deemed complete “based on the identical information concerning the inapplicability of any further Karst assessment”.

73The City submitted that the UHOP provides direction for a KA to be submitted for any lands “located within 120 metres of Hazardous Lands, Key Hydrologic Features, or Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI)”. It further noted that the NPCA has not provided any commentary on the KA matter.

74The City submitted that it was not satisfied with the letter provided by the geotechnical consultant and requires a more substantive justification as to why an assessment is not necessary, along with confirmation from NPCA that it is satisfied in this regard. Further, it submitted that an identified watercourse may be a ‘sinking stream’ karst feature and that “[w]ithout proper evaluation, karst features cannot be adequately considered”.

75The Tribunal agrees with UWSLG that the City is not entitled to require a KA as a condition to deem the Application complete. The Act and the UHOP is clear in this respect and the City demonstrated this through the processing of the AEGD SP. Requiring a KA for the Application would impose a different standard of submission requirements than those applied to the AEGD SP application and the UBE Applications.

76Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that correspondence from a geotechnical consultant explaining that a KA is not considered to be applicable, should be sufficient for the purposes of providing a complete application submission.

Complete Application Requirements – Revised Notice of Incomplete Application

77All of the Added Items in the Revised NIA were listed as required items in the FCD but were not addressed in the Initial NIA. Further, in the Revised NIA, the City characterized the Initial NIA as a “courtesy letter providing an opportunity to withdraw the application”.

78The Tribunal considers the City’s characterization of the Initial NIA in the Revised NIA as a courtesy letter to be both misleading and inaccurate given that the subject line in the Initial NIA clearly states: “Notice of Incomplete Application…”.

79UWSLG submitted that the City should not be entitled to raise new information and material requirements to deem the Application complete after the issuance of the Initial NIA. Nonetheless, it made submissions on each of the Added Items.

80The City made submissions on the FIA and the WWSMP as well as the Master Transportation Study (“MTS”) submitted by UWSLG. The City acknowledged that the MTS was not included as an outstanding item in the Initial NIA or the Revised NIA, but submitted that, because the Secondary Plan has changed significantly, the City requires an updated trip generation estimate.

81The Tribunal determines that the Revised NIA cannot be used as a tool to determine the completeness of the Application as it raises new items not addressed in the Initial NIA.

82Similarly, the Tribunal cannot consider the MTS in its consideration of the motion as it was not included in either the Initial NIA or the Revised NIA and therefore has no bearing on the matter. Further, it was not clearly articulated by the City that it considered the MTS as a requirement for deeming the Application complete. The Tribunal gives no weight to the City’s submissions in this regard.

83The Tribunal does not determine this to mean that the City cannot require updated material or additional information related to the Added Items or an updated MTS at any time after the Application has been deemed complete.

Resubmission of Application on May 16, 2025

84UWSLG submitted that the Revised Application was submitted in order to address and potentially resolve some or all of the issues of the Application and included an updated draft OPA, an updated PJR, and updated reliance letters. Further, it submitted that the Revised Application should not have any bearing on the motion to deem the Application complete.

85The City asserted that the Application, as submitted in November 2023, was for a significantly different Proposed SP than that proposed with the Revised Application in May 2025. It noted that the key differences include: a reduced amount of land proposed for redesignated from employment to residential, leading to a decrease in the projected population by approximately 2,000 people; a larger area of land to be designated for natural open space; a larger area of land to be designated for low-density residential; an overall increase in residential density; and modifications to the street network and park location. It asserted that these changes impact surrounding land use planning and infrastructure planning, and the differences, along with the outstanding items, lead the City to concluded that the Application was incomplete. It added that the different versions of the Proposed SP have inhibited the City’s ability to understand what is proposed.

86The City submitted that the updated Secondary Plan and supporting PJR submitted in May 2025, results in the submission of multiple iterations of a land use plan through several applications, including the UBE Applications, and a proposed Minister’s Zoning Order which presented a significantly different land use plan from what is proposed through the Application. The result being a lack of clarity by the City on what is proposed, and discrepancies and disconnects between the Application and the Revised Application are too significant for the City to reasonably consider the merits of the application under the PPS.

87The Tribunal finds that the application submissions over the course of the past three years, and the land use details of the Application versus those of the Revised Application, are extraneous to the determination of whether the Application should be deemed complete. The Tribunal gives no weight to the City’s submissions in this regard.

SUMMARY FINDINGS

88The Tribunal finds that, based on the findings on the items addressed in relation to the Initial NIA, both individually and collectively, the grounds advanced by the City for deeming the Application incomplete are insufficient and fail to present a compelling rationale. Furthermore, UWSLG’s submissions on each of the items constitute sufficient steps taken to address the City’s comments in the Initial NIA and support a determination that the Application is complete.

89It is noted that the Act does not define or mention the term ‘complete application’. However, s. 22(6) of the Act addresses the timeline for when appeal rights commence for an OPA, thereby addressing the concept of a complete application and the need to determine a complete application date.

90In this respect, the Tribunal finds that the Motion should succeed, in part, and the Application should be deemed complete, effective December 14, 2023, being the date UWSLG responded to the Initial NIA by providing the additional materials and information required by the City to deem the Application complete.

91In considering the Motion, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the written and oral submissions of both Parties, as well as Rule 10 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), and s. 12 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

Costs

92Regarding the request for costs by UWSLG, the Tribunal advised that a cost award must be pursued through a separate motion filed within 30 days following the issuance of this Decision, in compliance with Rule 23 of the Rules. The Tribunal further advised that the standard for a cost award against a party is limited to the conduct, or course of conduct, of a party as per Rule 23.9 of the Rules.

ORDER

93THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motion for Directions brought by Upper West Side Landowners Group Inc. is granted, in part, and the application is deemed complete, effective December 14, 2023.

94The Member is not seized of the matter, although may be available for further case management, subject to the Tribunal’s calendar permitting.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

MEMBER