Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000502
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant: Jacek Kania
Description: Determination of the development charges
Reference Number: PRDW202401120
Property Address: 38 Madeline Drive
Municipality/UT: Town of Collingwood / County of Simcoe
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000502
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000502
OLT Case Name: Kania vs. Collingwood (Town)
Heard: November 6, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Jacek Kania | Self-Represented* |
| Town of Collingwood | S. O’Melia |
DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1Jacek Kania filed a complaint before the Council of the Town of Collingwood (“Town”) pursuant to s. 20(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27 (“DC Act”) (“Complaint”) with respect to a requested credit in the amount of $22,372.00 in Development Charges (“DCs”) paid by Mr. Kania. Following the decision of Town Council to dismiss Mr. Kania’s complaint and maintain the DCs as originally calculated, Mr. Kania appealed Town Council’s decision pursuant to s. 22(1) of the DC Act on the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal (“Appeal”).
2The Complaint and the Appeal relate to DCs that were calculated when Mr. Kania applied for a building permit to construct a single detached residential dwelling on his property located at 38 Madeline Drive, in the Town (“subject property”). Mr. Kania incurred DCs in the total amount of $56,672.00 upon applying for a building permit for the subject property. Mr. Kania disputed payment of the Water Treatment Plant and Water Services portion of the DCs in the amount of $22,372.00 as he felt that he had already paid for water services pursuant to a Local Improvement Charge (“LIC”) levied against the subject property in 2013.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
3This was the only hearing event for this Appeal. At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal confirmed that there were no known issues with Notice circulated by the Tribunal. Given the nature of the Appeal, there were no other interested individuals or entities present seeking status.
HEARING AND EVIDENCE
4Mr. Kania was self represented at the hearing and presented his case solely through submissions provided on his own behalf. The Tribunal affirmed Mr. Kania prior to hearing his case to allow cross-examination by counsel for the Town on any evidence which Mr. Kania may inadvertently include in his submissions. The Town’s evidence was provided through Craig Binning, Partner at Hemson Consulting Ltd., who was qualified by the Tribunal, without objection, to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land economics, with a specialty in municipal finance and DCs.
5In an appeal pursuant to s. 22(1) of the DC Act, the Tribunal’s authority arises pursuant to s. 24(4), which states that the Tribunal “…may do anything that could have been done by the council of the municipality under subsection 20(6)”, which reads as follows:
Council’s powers
(6) After hearing the evidence and submissions of the complainant, the council may dismiss the complaint or rectify any incorrect determination or error that was the subject to the complaint.
6Pursuant to s. 26(1) of the DC Act, DCs are payable upon the issuance of a building permit. The amount of the DCs is established under local by-laws in force at the time of building permit issuance.
7Mr. Binning provided an uncontested overview for the benefit of the Tribunal. He explained that the subject property has incurred charges pursuant to the following three by-laws:
- By-law No. 2024-050 (“DC By-law 050”), established under the DC Act, which is a Town-wide by-law establishing development charges;
- By-law No. 2024-036 (“DC By-law 036”), established under the DC Act, which is a Town-wide by-law establishing water treatment plant DCs; and
- By-law No. 2013-086 (“LIC By-law”), established under the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (“Municipal Act”) for water servicing and connections in a defined area.
8Mr. Kania paid a levy after receiving an invoice from the Town, dated October 9, 2013 (“2013 Invoice”), imposing a Local Improvement Charge (“LIC”) in accordance with the LIC By-law with respect to water servicing and connections. The 2013 Invoice imposed a levy in the amount of $28,915.48 for the subject property, which Mr. Kania opted to pay over a 10-year period, commencing in 2014. The LIC was imposed by the Town on 34 properties, in an amount of $28,915.48 each, to recover the cost of infrastructure in a defined benefitting area for a watermain installed to service those 34 properties.
9In 2024, Mr. Kania applied for a building permit, and at the time of building permit issuance Mr. Kania incurred DCs pursuant to both DC By-law 050 and DC By-law 036. The crux of Mr. Kania’s Complaint and Appeal relates to the charge of $12,809.00 for water services, pursuant to DC By-law 050, and the charge of $9,563.00 for the water treatment plant,1 pursuant to DC By-law 036 which he feels were already paid pursuant to the LIC By-law.
Appellant’s Submissions
10Mr. Kania’s position is that he was double-charged and is owed a credit for the DCs paid related to water services and the water treatment plant.
11Mr. Kania argued that each lot in the LIC area incurred the same charge, and once the work was completed by the Town, the lots already improved with houses were able to connect and exercise the benefit that they paid for at no additional cost. Mr. Kania was unable to benefit from the works when they were completed because his lot was vacant. His position is that he should receive the same benefit as those who had improved lots and did not incur any DCs to connect to the water system.
12Mr. Kania submitted that the LIC By-law is not localized, but rather, the water infrastructure becomes part of the Town’s infrastructure. He further argued that the LIC By-law has been disregarded by the Town as it did not set any time limits regarding when one could connect to the water infrastructure. He characterized the LIC By-law as a legal document or contract that was binding on the Town to provide a service and binding on the landowners to pay for that service. He paid for the benefit to connect to a water system once it was constructed and disputes that he should have to pay the same charge now that he is ready to connect.
13Mr. Kania took the Tribunal to a map dated 2024 (“2024 map”) in Mr. Binning’s witness statement, entered as Exhibit 1, which was prepared for the 2024 DCs Background Study (“2024 DCBS”). The 2024 map showed the proposed water servicing infrastructure and Mr. Kania explained that it does not include the subject property. Mr. Kania argued that this demonstrates that when the 2024 assessment was completed, the subject property was excluded.
Town’s Submissions and Evidence
14The Town disagrees with Mr. Kania, submitting that the DCs were separate and distinct from the charge relating to the LIC. The charges arise pursuant to two different pieces of legislation, being the DC Act and the Municipal Act, and further, the LICs were specific to identified properties in a defined benefitting area, whereas the DCs are for Town-wide services.
15To explain the distinction between the LICs and DCs, Mr. Binning used an example of a developer developing a subdivision. The developer would be responsible to pay for internal servicing, including watermains, and further be responsible for DCs relating to the development. In response to Mr. Kania’s submissions, Mr. Binning noted that DCs cannot be levied on improved lands, which is why Mr. Kania’s vacant lot is subject to DCs while his neighbours who have existing dwellings on their lots are not subject to DCs. In short, DCs arise when an owner applies for a building permit. During cross-examination, Mr. Binning explained that the LIC By-law was enacted pursuant to the Municipal Act and introduced water services into a defined area with some developed lots. Distinct from LICs which can be levied against developed and undeveloped lots, DCs can only be levied against undeveloped lots.
16In response to Mr. Kania’s submissions that the preamble to the LIC By-law references a broader range of water services, Mr. Binning explained that the schedules make it clear that the LIC levied related to a watermain. He explained that the Town’s 2024 DCBS completed by Hemson delineates between what is deemed local and what is not. He explained that pipes less than 300 millimetres (“mm”) in size were deemed local and funded as a local cost, while those larger than 300 mm in size would be included in the DC calculation. The watermain, which is the subject of the LIC By-law, is less than 300 mm, deemed local, and therefore funded under the Municipal Act, and not included in the DC calculations.
17Mr. Binning explained that, in addition to the payment made by Mr. Kania pursuant to the LIC By-law, he also incurred two sets of DCs. The charge paid pursuant to DC By-law 050 related to general services, including, inter alia, libraries and road networks. He explained that DC By-law 050 was structured to capture linear water services, while DC By-law 036 captured water supply. He further explained that water supply was separated out from DC By-law 050 because the Town understood that its water treatment plant required expansion and placing water supply into a separate by-law, being DC By-law 036, would allow the by-law to be easily amended if the Town received grant money to assist in funding the expansion.
18In response to Mr. Kania’s submissions related to the 2024 map, Mr. Binning explained that the map shows the extensive infrastructure funded by the DCs, which the subject property will connect into. It demonstrates the distinction between the charges, being that the LIC is localized and the DCs are Town-wide.
19Mr. Binning concluded with the opinion that there is no legislative basis to award a credit to Mr. Kania. The payment made pursuant to the LIC By-law was for a local infrastructure need, which is distinct from what is funded pursuant to the DC By-laws.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
20The crux of the dispute is whether the Town made an error resulting in Mr. Kania being charged for the same services twice by the Town. The short answer is no, the Town did not make an error in assessing DCs owed by Mr. Kania.
21Pursuant to the Municipal Act, municipalities are permitted to enact LIC by-laws to levy charges to residents in a defined benefitting area to fund infrastructure projects. Municipalities are further permitted to enact DC by-laws pursuant to the DC Act to levy charges against new development to assist in funding infrastructure to meet the increased need of servicing from new growth and development. The Tribunal agrees with the Town’s argument that each levy is separate and distinct from one another and authorized pursuant to different pieces of legislation. LICs are exactly that, local, in that they serve a defined benefitting area. DCs are wholistic in that they recover costs related to meeting the overall increase in servicing which arises from growth and development in a municipality.
22The charges Mr. Kania incurred pursuant to the LIC By-law were incurred by all lot owners in a defined area. The owners in that defined area with improved lots were able to connect to the infrastructure once it was completed by the Town. The Tribunal found Mr. Binning’s use of the developer example instructive. Similar to a developer, Mr. Kania is responsible to pay charges related to internal servicing of the defined area in which the subject property is located. Similarly, he is also responsible to pay DCs relating to the development, which in Mr. Kania’s case is the construction of a building on the subject property. These are not duplicative charges.
23The Tribunal was persuaded by Mr. Binning’s evidence distinguishing between the charges incurred by Mr. Kania. At the risk of being repetitive, the charge incurred pursuant to the LIC By-law was for localized services to fund water infrastructure in a defined area. The charges incurred by Mr. Kania pursuant to DC By-law 050 and DC By-law 036 were for water services and supply at the larger municipal level. Despite the fact that all charges related to water, each charge was for specific, unrelated parts of the water infrastructure.
24The Tribunal must be presented with enough evidence to support a determination to conclude differently than Town Council did when hearing the Complaint. In the absence of any evidence to justify granting the relief sought by Mr. Kania, the Tribunal must dismiss the Appeal and uphold the decision of Town Council to dismiss the Complaint. Based on a thorough review of the submissions and the totality of the written and viva voce evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Town did not double-charge Mr. Kania for the DCs paid related to water services and the water treatment plant.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed.
“C. Hardy”
C. HARDY VICE-CHAIR
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.