Building Industry and Land Development Association v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2025 CanLII 127704

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 04, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001332

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 257.65 of the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.2.

Appellant: Building Industry and Land Development Association

Appellant: Sionito Community Development Corporation 502800 Ontario Non-profit Corp., 1982

Description: Imposing education development charge

Reference Number: EDC BL 2023-195

Property Address: City Wide

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-23-001332

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001332

OLT Case Name: Building Industry and Land Development Association v. Toronto Catholic District School Board

Heard: June 17-18, 2025, via video conference

APPEARANCES:

Parties Building Industry and Land Development Association

Counsel Denise Baker Katherine Chan

Parties Toronto Catholic District School Board

Counsel Andrew Baker Julie Lesage

DECISION DELIVERED BY JENNIFER GOLD AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION: NATURE OF APPEAL

1The Tribunal convened a merit hearing on June 17, 2025, and June 18, 2025, for the appeal brought pursuant to subsection 257.68 of the Education Act by the Building Industry and Land Development Association (“BILD”) against Education Development Charges By-law 2023 No.195, enacted by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (the “School Board”) to levy education development charges. The merit hearing was phase 1 of 2 hearing phases, dealing with the appeal by BILD. Phase 2 will deal with the appeal by Sionito Community Development Corporation 502800 Ontario Non-profit Corp., 1982, (“Sionito”) that asserts that By-law 2023 No.195 conflicts with the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.27, regarding exemptions for non-profit housing. After the issuance of this decision, Sionito will decide as to whether phase 2 is required and shall advise the Tribunal accordingly.

2The issue in this phase 1 appeal by BILD is whether the School Board met the statutory eligibility requirements set out in section 257.61 of the Education Act and section 10 of Ontario Regulation 20/98 (the “EDC Regulation”) to pass Education Development Charges By-law 2023 No.195 (the “2023 EDC By-law”). The parties agree that the conditions found in subsection 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(iii) of the EDC Regulation have not been met and that the only eligibility requirement that is in dispute is with respect to subsection 10(2)(ii) of the EDC Regulation.

3Having heard and considered all of the evidence proffered, the Tribunal finds that the School Board met the statutory eligibility requirements set out in section 257.61 of the Education Act and section 10 of the EDC Regulation to pass the 2023 EDC By-law.

4During the hearing, the Tribunal heard evidence from Daryl Keleher, a land economist qualified to provide expert opinion evidence on behalf of BILD, and Cynthia Clarke, qualified to provide expert opinion evidence with respect to Education Development Charge By-laws on behalf of the School Board. The materials before the Tribunal were:

(a) Joint Document Book

(b) Witness Statement of Mr. Daryl Keleher

(c) Witness Statement of Ms. Cynthia Clarke

(d) Reply Witness Statement of Mr. Daryl Keleher

(e) Reply Witness Statement of Ms. Cynthia Clarke

5The Tribunal also received written closing submissions and reply closing submissions from the parties.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Education Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. E.2

6Division E of the Education Act sets out the legislative authority for school boards to impose education development charges. Section 257.54 of the Education Act sets out the primary statutory criteria for adopting an EDC by-law, in stating:

if there is residential development in the area of jurisdiction of a board that would increase education land costs, the board may pass by-laws for the imposition of education development charges against land in the area of jurisdiction undergoing residential or non-residential development.

7Section 257.53(2) sets out the list of eligible “education land costs” that can be recovered by boards through education development charges (“EDCs”):

Education land costs

(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the following are education land costs for the purposes of this Division if they are incurred or proposed to be incurred by a board:

1. Costs to acquire land or an interest in land, including a leasehold interest, to be used by the board to provide pupil accommodation.

2. Costs to provide services to the land or otherwise prepare the site so that a building or buildings may be built on the land to provide pupil accommodation.

3. Costs to prepare and distribute education development charge background studies as required under this Division.

4. Interest on money borrowed to pay for costs described in paragraphs 1 and 2.

5. Costs to undertake studies in connection with an acquisition referred to in paragraph 1.

8Section 257.53(4) sets out that only the capital component of costs to lease land or acquire a leasehold interest is an education land cost:

Education land costs, leases, etc.

(4) Only the capital component of costs to lease land or to acquire a leasehold interest is an education land cost.

9Section 257.61 paragraphs (1) and (2) set out the requirement to complete an EDC Study and its contents. According to 257.61(2):

(2) The education development charge background study shall include,

(a) estimates of the anticipated amount, type and location of residential and non-residential development;

(b) the number of projected new pupil places and the number of new schools required to provide those new pupil places;

(c) estimates of the education land cost, the net education land cost and the growth-related net education land cost of the new schools required to provide the projected new pupil places;

(d) a description of any alternative projects that the board intends to allocate education development charges revenue towards;

(e) a description of any localized education development agreements that the board intends to enter into; and

(f) such other information as may be prescribed.

Ontario Regulation 20/98

10Section 7(1) of O.Reg. 20/98 and paragraphs 3 and 4 of that section state:

7. (1) Before an education development charge by-law is passed, the board shall do the following for the purposes of determining the education development charges:

8. For each of the years referred to in paragraph 1, the board shall estimate the total number of new school pupils using the estimated number of new dwelling units and the estimated average number of new school pupils generated by each new dwelling unit and, subtracting from that number, the number of existing school pupil places that, in the opinion of the board and subject to the Minister’s approval under section 10, could reasonably be used to accommodate those new school pupils.

3.1 The board shall estimate the total number of new school pupils who were or who are, for each of the years referred to in paragraph 1, expected to be generated by new dwelling units that were, since the coming into force of the currently in force or, subject to subsection (2), the most recently expired bylaw, as the case may be, built in the area in which the charges are to be imposed under the proposed by-law.

3.2 The board shall determine the number of existing and planned school pupil places that, in the opinion of the board and subject to the Minister’s approval under section 10, could reasonably be used to accommodate the estimated total number of new school pupils referred to in paragraph 3.1. 3.3 The board shall subtract the number determined under paragraph 3.2 from the number estimated under paragraph 3.1.

3.4 The board shall add the number determined under paragraph 3.3 to the number estimated under paragraph 3.

4. The board shall estimate the net education land cost for the school sites required to provide pupil places for the number of new school pupils determined under paragraph 3.4.

11Paragraph 3.2 requires a board to estimate the number of existing and planned school pupil places that could “reasonably be used to accommodate the estimated total number of new school pupils”.

12Section 10 of O.Reg. 20/98 set out the conditions that must be met in order for a board to pass an EDC by-law. These conditions must all be met and they include Ministry approval of board estimates of new pupils, existing pupil places as per section 7, paragraph 3, and that the average number of pupils exceeds “total capacity of the board to accommodate secondary school pupils”:

10. The following conditions are prescribed, for the purposes of subsection 257.54 (6) of the Act, as conditions that must be satisfied in order for a board to pass an education development charge by-law:

11. The Minister has approved,

i. the board’s estimates under paragraph 3 of section 7, for each of the years required under that paragraph, of the total number of new school pupils, and the number of existing school pupil places that could reasonably be used to accommodate those new school pupils,

i.1 the board’s estimates under paragraph 3.1 of subsection 7(1), for each of the years required under that paragraph,

i.2 the board’s estimates of existing and planned school pupil places under paragraph 3.2 of subsection 7 (1), and

ii. the board’s estimates of the number of school sites used by the board to determine the net education land cost under paragraph 4 of section 7.

2. At least one of the following conditions:

i. The estimated average number of elementary school pupils of the board over the five years immediately following the day the board intends to have the by-law come into force exceeds the total capacity of the board to accommodate elementary school pupils throughout its jurisdiction on the day the by-law is passed.

ii. The estimated average number of secondary school pupils of the board over the five years immediately following the day the board intends to have the by-law come into force exceeds the total capacity of the board to accommodate secondary school pupils throughout its jurisdiction on the day the by-law is passed.

iii. At the time of expiry of the board’s last education development charge by-law that applies to all or part of the area in which the charges would be imposed, the balance in the education development charge account is less than the amount required to pay outstanding commitments to meet growth-related net education land costs, as calculated for the purposes of determining the education development charges imposed under that by-law.

13The issue in this appeal is the interpretation of 10.2(ii) and whether “the total capacity of the board to accommodate secondary school pupils” includes leased capacity when estimating the board’s ability to accommodate pupils. There is no definition of “total capacity” or “capacity” in the Education Act or the EDC Regulation.

ONTARIO MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT CHARGES GUIDELINES

14The Tribunal reviewed the 2002 Education Development Charges Guidelines and the 2023 Education Development Charges Guidelines. Starting in 2002, the province first published guidelines to provide direction in respect of EDC requirements, calculations and the consultation processes. The Education Development Charges Guidelines were most recently amended in April 2023. The Education Development Guidelines (“EDC Guidelines”) provide legislative, regulatory and other references. The Guidelines also provide direction regarding how to account for capacity associated with leased schools.

15The 2002 EDC Guidelines provided direction on how to account for capacity associated with leased schools:

2.3.4 Capacity Determination

For the purpose of EDCs, the capacity to be used for all calculations (trigger, net new pupil places, etc.) is the current capacity (as recorded in the Ministry’s School Facilities Inventory System) of all operational schools of the board on the day the by- law comes into force (also known as the “On-The-Ground” Capacity). Adjustments reflecting Ministry policy are to be made in such circumstances as outlined below (in consultation with staff from the Business Services Branch of the Ministry of Education):

• The “On-The-Ground” capacity of a leased school is to be included if the school has “New Pupil Place” capacity attributed to it in the Ministry’s School Facilities Inventory System; if the leased school has no “New Pupil Place” capacity attributed to it, the board may exclude the “On-The-Ground” capacity for EDC purposes.

16The 2023 EDC Guidelines updated the determination of capacity and indicates that lease capacity may be excluded. Paragraph 20, titled “Capacity Determination” provides:

For the purpose of calculating eligibility (See Section 14), the current capacity (as recorded in the Ministry’s School Facilities Inventory System) of all capacity of the school board (also known as the “On-The-Ground” Capacity) on the day the by-law comes into force should be used. Adjustments reflecting ministry policy are to be made in such circumstances as outlined below (in consultation with staff from the Capital Program Branch of the Ministry of Education):

• The “On-The-Ground” capacity of schools transferred between panels (e.g. an elementary school being converted into a secondary school) within 12 months of by-law passage may be attributed to the panel the school will be used for after the transfer is complete. In order to shift the “On-The-Ground” capacity between panels in these situations, the school board must have passed a resolution transferring the school from one panel to the other.

• The capacity of all schools/additions that have received ministry approval through the Capital Priorities Grant program that are scheduled to open in the next twelve months but are not reflected in SFIS should be included in the calculation of On-The -Ground capacity.

School boards are required, in the background study, to document all capacity adjustments made that are not consistent with the current information loaded in the Ministry’s School Facilities Inventory System. Where applicable, school boards are to ensure that the School Facilities Inventory System has been updated to reflect the current configuration of schools in the school board’s real estate portfolio.

Starting in 2019, school boards have the ability to exempt capacity reported in their SFIS. However, minister approval is required to do so.

2023 EDC BY-LAW and BACKGROUND STUDY

17The School Board passed the 2023 EDC By-Law on November 27, 2023. The 2023 EDC By-Law permits the School Board to collect EDCs until December 2, 2028.

18Prior to the passage of the 2023 EDC By-Law, the School Board referred its estimates of the total number of new elementary and secondary pupils and its estimates of the number of elementary and secondary school sites to the Ministry of Education for approval, and approval was given on November 8, 2023, under section 10 of the EDC Regulation.

19The Education Development Charges Background Study and Review of Education Development Charges Policies in support of the 2023 EDC By-Law was prepared by Quadrant Advisory Group Limited and dated August 14, 2023 (the “Background Study”). This Background Study determined that the School Board met the statutory and regulatory criteria for passing an EDC By-Law. A copy of the Background Study was also provided to the Minister. Public meetings were held on October 19 and October 25, 2023.

20The Background Study makes note of the approach used in excluding leased facilities from the determination of by-law eligibility due to the historical practice of accounting for “Bill 30 lease facilities”, which is noted as being consistent with Section 7(3) of the EDC Regulation and past treatment. Bill 30 Schools are schools that are owned by the Toronto District School Board and leased to the Toronto Catholic District School Board.

21Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act was passed in 1986 and its purpose was to implement a policy of full funding for Roman Catholic separate high schools in Ontario and provide for the transfer of real and personal property between public school boards and Roman Catholic school boards. Section 136d(1) of this Act permitted a Roman Catholic school board and a public board to enter into an agreement to provide secondary school instruction of pupils of the one board in a school or schools operated by the other board. Pursuant to this provision, the Toronto Catholic District School Board has a number of schools that it leases from the Toronto District School Board (“Bill 30 Schools”).

22The Bill 30 Schools include:

i. Bishop Allen

ii. Bishop Marrocco

iii. Archbishop Romero

iv. Father Henry Carr

v. Jean Vanier

vi. Michael Power/St. Joseph

vii. St. Patrick

23Based on the Background Study and in reviewing Secondary School capacity and enrolment, if leased capacity is excluded from capacity estimates, there are 6,052 more secondary school pupils than pupil places. On this basis, the School Board takes the position that it is eligible to recover EDCs.

24The following table from Ms. Clarke’s Witness Statement provides a summary and details of secondary schools of the School Board, their capacity and Enrolment:

25The estimate of Roman Catholic secondary school needs does not include the existing capacity at facilities leased from the Toronto District School Board (Bill 30 Schools) as listed in the table above.

26The following table from Ms. Clarke’s Witness Statement shows the impacts on the eligibility to impose EDCs from the inclusion or exclusion of leased school capacity in EDC rate calculations.

27According to above Table, if leased school capacity is excluded, then there are 6,052 more pupils than pupil places and the School Board meets the eligibility criteria to imposed EDCs. If leased school capacity is included, then there are 1,451 fewer pupils than pupil places and the School Board would be ineligible to recover EDCs.

28It should be noted that the Background Study used 23 pupils as the classroom loading number when calculation secondary school capacity. Ms. Clarke was directed to do so by email instructions she received from the Director of the Ministry of Education’s Capital Programs Branch dated February 17, 2021. The School Facilities Inventory System (“SFIS”) data system, at the time the Background Study was prepared, still included secondary classroom loading at 21 pupil places. The School Board and its’ expert, Ms. Clarke, submitted at the hearing that calculating based on 21 pupils as the classroom loading number is more appropriate because the SFIS data system, at the time the Background Study was prepared, still included secondary classroom loading at 21 pupil places, and all EDC school boards had consistently loaded secondary spaces a 21 prior to the receipt of the email from the Director of the Ministry of Education’s Capital Programs Branch dated February 17, 2021.

29Ms. Clarke submitted that she was not aware of any factual or legislative rationale as to why school boards could not load at 21 pupils per classroom in the 2023 Background Study. She advised that draft 2024 EDC Guidelines specifically stated that classroom loading at 23 pupils in secondary schools was not to go ahead until after the 2024-2025 school year. She notes that the 2024 EDC Guidelines had only been circulated in draft.

ANALYSIS

30The test before the Tribunal is whether the School Board, in enacting the EDC By-law, has acted fairly and reasonably, within its powers, and in accordance with the legislation.¹ It is BILD’s position that the School Board, by ignoring the leased capacity of Bill 30 schools, has not acted fairly or reasonably and has not followed the requirements set out in the Education Act, and specifically the EDC Regulation. The School Board submits that the exclusion of Bill 30 schools was fair and reasonable in accordance with the legislation, consistent with past practice and with the endorsement of the Ministry.

31The School Board submits that a contextual approach should be taken when interpreting s10.1(ii) of the EDC Regulation. BILD advocates for a more restrictive, plain language interpretation. However, as assessment of fairness and reasonableness requires an assessment of context, including the information available to the Board, past practice, and the purpose of the legislative scheme.

32The underlying purpose of the education development charges regime is to allow a school board to buy and sell land that it can manage for the purpose of pupil accommodation, in response to reasonable estimates of what a growing community will require in the future to provide education to students living in that community.²

33In 1989, the province enacted the Development Charges Act that provided the authority for school boards and municipalities to adopt by-laws to collect development charges to fund growth-related infrastructure costs. The legislation gave school boards the opportunity to fund growth-related land acquisition needs, along with the capital costs of school construction. These development charges are based on the premise that “growth should pay for growth”. In 1998, the legislative regime related to the imposition of education development charges was moved to Division E of the Education Act. At the same time, the province introduced a new education funding model that removed the ability of school boards to generate their own capital funds through taxation. The EDC Regulation came into force in 1998 and sets out the calculation methodology to determine EDC rates and whether an EDC By-law may be enacted. In 2002, the province first published guidelines to provide direction in respect of EDC requirements, calculations and the consultation processes. The EDC Guidelines were most recently amended in April 2023.

34Before passing an EDC By-Law, the School Board is required to complete an education development charge background study. This backgrounds study includes estimates of the anticipated amount, type and location of residential and non-residential development, the number of projected new pupil places, the number of new schools required to provide those new pupil places, estimates of education land costs, the net education land cost, the growth-related net education land cost of the new schools required to provide the projected new pupil places, a description of any alternative projects that the board intends to allocate education development charges revenue towards and a description of any localized education development agreements that the board intends to enter into. Section 257.61(2)(f) also adds, “and such other information as may be prescribed” to this list. Background studies are complex documents that compile and analyze a great deal of information. They require significant expertise in their preparation. They are not fixed and may include additional information for consideration. Background studies are based on “estimates” and “projections”. They may also include information that a School Board is best able to gather, understand and assess.

35In this case, the School Board retained Ms. Clarke, who is qualified as an EDC expert, has significant experience in Education Development Charge by-laws and preparing EDC background studies. In her witness statement and testimony, she described the methodology for the EDC Background Study. In her witness statement, she states that:

the EDC approach and methodology prescribed by the legislation requires a variety of assumption and we do our best to accurately assess each input, subject to the date limitations that exist. Further, I have followed this exact same methodology in all of my studies and the Ministry has always accepted this methodology, including the ability to exclude any available capacity within a review Area.

36Perfection is not the standard to be applied in assessing the School Board’s Background Study and the application of the EDC By-law. The Background Study attempts to assess a moment in time and the needs of the School Board at that time. It is unreasonable to expect it to be a perfect tool. The entire legislative scheme references “estimates”. The decision of the School Board to exclude leased capacity from the determination of “total capacity” was reasonable, as it endeavoured to provide a reasonable estimate of capacity. The Background Study accorded with past practice and had Minister approval. The Tribunal agrees with the School Board that capacity in the Bill 30 schools is not capacity that allows the School Board to accommodate new students generated by development in the way that the EDC statutory scheme is intended.

37In coming to the conclusion that the School Board was reasonable in excluding leased capacity for the purposes of section10.2(ii) of the EDC Regulation, the Tribunal has applied a contextual assessment to determine what purpose “capacity” serves under that education development charge legislative regime. Estimating capacity in the Background Study involves the exercise of professional judgement by the School Board, it’s consultants and what is accepted by Ministry policy. The Tribunal is particularly persuaded by the following factual circumstances:

(a) The Bill 30 schools have limited capacity. They are leased by the School Board from the Toronto Public School Board. It is understandable that there are significant limits on increasing capacity at these sites and significant investments at these sites are not reasonable given that they are leased. Leased capacity requiring the approval of another school board in order to address enrolment growth through the provision of additional capacity does not, in my opinion, provide a long-term accommodation solution for students.

(b) The April 2023 Guidelines provide greater clarity regarding the implementation of the EDC Regulation. Section 20 of the EDC Guidelines states school boards can exempt capacity with minister approval. Section 14 states that an EDC by-law can be passed if the projected average elementary or secondary enrolment within its jurisdiction, over the five years following the date of by-law passage, exceeds their elementary or secondary capacity (as of the date the by-law is passed) as agreed upon by the school board and the Ministry. This provision highlights that the agreement of the Ministry is essential.

(c) According to 257.61(2)(f), an EDC Study is to contain, among other things, “such other information as may be prescribed.” The exemption of leased capacity from the determination of capacity was prescribed by the Ministry and stated in the 2023 EDC Guidelines.

(d) BILD submitted that past estimates of capacity of secondary schools made by the School Board itself indicate that for other planning purposes, they consider the leased secondary schools to be part of its available capacity. This submission is based on the Education Capital Information System (“ECIS”) or SFIS” data. The existing capacity of each school is provided by a school board as part of the determination of growth-related student accommodation needs and, consistent with Ministry practice, the Minister of Education’s approval process includes confirmation of the Board-reported school capacity of each school against the Ministry’s records – ECIS - (formerly SFIS). However, as stated by Ms. Clarke:

the purpose of the SFIS/ECIS data is to measure capacity and utilization on a consistent basis across the province and is used by the province as the basis for determining renewal and operations grant funding. SFIS or ECIS data is not available publicly. These processes are governed by different legislative/regulatory regimes than EDCs, and due to the changing nature of the items that are inputs to capacity, described in paragraph 3 of my Witness Statement, it is not useful to compare estimates of capacity by the School Board for other purposes to the EDC background study.

The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Clarke. The SFIS/ECIS has a different purpose and it is not necessary for the School Board to define “capacity” in the Background Study in the same manner it is defined in SFIS/ECIS.

38For the foregoing reasons, it was reasonable for the School Board to exclude leased capacity from the determination of EDC eligibility and to pass the EDC By-law.

39Even if leased capacity had been included, the School Board could have used an input of an average classroom loading of 21 pupils per classroom instead of the 23 pupils used in the Background Study. The School Board still would have qualified to pass the EDC By-Law on the basis of secondary enrolment in excess of capacity. Furthermore, the Background Study included a conservative estimate of enrolment over the five years following the EDC By-law. Enrolment in Fall 2023 was increasing faster than estimated in the Background Study, which has been subsequently confirmed by the School Board’s updated enrolment figures. Background studies should allow school boards to use conservative and non-conservative metrics depending on the circumstances at the time of the Background Study. School boards are best situated to understand their growth needs. It would be improper to assess one input to the Background Study in isolation to others, particularly given the complexity of backgrounds studies and the fact they are based on several estimates and projections. The entire Background Study and its purpose and context should be assessed as a whole. There exists a range of reasonable decisions about what is included and excluded to determine EDC eligibility.

40The case law on EDC and Development Charge appeals does not require those estimates to be perfect. Rather, the legal test requires the Tribunal to examine whether the school board has acted fairly and reasonably, within its powers and in accordance with the legislation.³

41“Locking-in” an input to the Background Study would set an unfair standard in adjudicating EDC By-law appeals. If that were the case, then only the inputs raised by an appellant can be challenged whereas inputs that the school board wishes to assess would be immune from consideration. This approach would unfairly deprive the school boards of the right to demonstrate that the eligibility test had been satisfied and conflicts with the principles of natural justice. A restrictive review of one input to undermine a background study would be unfair, not in the public interest and contrary to the legislative scheme that understands that much of the information is based on estimates and projections.

ORDER

42THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal by the Building Industry and Land Development Association is dismissed and Education Development Charges By-law 2023 No.195 remains in force and effect.

“Jennifer Gold”

JENNIFER GOLD

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. 1Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Re, 2010 CarswellOnt 10105, at para. 21; Orillia (City) v. Simcoe (County) District School Board, 2008 CarswellOnt 1809, at paras. 23-26; Dunster Investments Inc. v Kawartha Lakes (City), 2024 CanLII 5539 (ON LT), at para. 25.
2. 2Orillia (City) v. Simcoe (County) District School Board, 2008 CarswellOnt 1809, at para. 48; TCDSB BOA at Tab 1, p.16.
3. 3Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, Re, 2010 CarswellOnt 10105, at para. 21; TCDSB BOA at Tab 2, p. 24. Orillia (City) v. Simcoe (County) District School Board, 2008 CarswellOnt 1809, at paras. 23-26; TCDSB BOA at Tab 1, pp.12-13. Dunster Investments Inc. v Kawartha Lakes (City), 2024 CanLII 5539 (ON LT), at para. 25.