Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 07, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000996
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2592693 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use development comprised of 185 single detached dwellings
Reference Number: OPA-20-0018
Property Address: 6000 Marineland Parkway
Municipality: Niagara Falls
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000996
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000996
OLT Case Name: 2592693 Ontario Inc. v. Niagara Falls (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2592693 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use development comprised of 185 single detached dwellings
Reference Number: ZBLA AM-2020-005
Property Address: 6000 Marineland Parkway
Municipality: Niagara Falls
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000997
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000996
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2592693 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a mixed-use development comprised of 185 single detached dwellings
Reference Number: 26T-11-2020-001
Property Address: 6000 Marineland Parkway
Municipality: Niagara Falls
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000998
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000996
Heard: February 14, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2592693 Ontario Inc. ("Applicant")
Denise Baker Narmada Gunawardana
City of Niagara Falls ("City")
Paul DeMelo
Chemtrade Logistics Inc.
Evan Barz
Stanley-Zelco Ltd. and Myer Salit Ltd. ("Salit")
Brian Duxbury
Washington Mills Electro Minerals ("WMEM")
Patrick Maloney
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. SAUVE ON FEBRUARY 14, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCATION
1This is the second Case Management Conference ("CMC") of this matter concerning applications to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development comprised of 185 single detached dwellings, 105 to 210 townhouse units, with 105 to 159 dwelling units in medium density residential development in the City of Niagara Falls.
2On March 20, 2020, the Applicant filed applications for an Official Plan Amendment ("OPA"), Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA"), and Draft Plan of Subdivision for the land known municipally as 6000 Marineland Parkway, Niagara Falls. On August 19, 2020, the applications were deemed complete by the City. On October 5, 2021, the applications were amended in response to circulation comments and resubmitted to the City for consideration. The applications were further revised and submitted in May 2024. The City failed to make a decision within the prescribed time period, and as a result, these appeals were filed. The City also failed to hold a public meeting for these applications.
3At the previous CMC on January 17, 2025, a number of Party status requests were heard. The Party status request for WMEM, listed as Washington Mills in that Decision, was deferred for counsel to attend. Also, a 15-day Merit Hearing was scheduled for Monday, June 9, 2025 to Monday, June 30, 2025. The Tribunal is not sitting on Monday, June 16, 2025.
4One of the Parties granted Party status at the previous CMC had since notified the Tribunal that they wished to withdraw as a Party. No representative attended this CMC. The Tribunal accepts the withdrawal of Niagara South Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 118 as a Party to this appeal.
WHEN SHOULD THE WMEM PARTY STATUS REQUEST BE HEARD
5WMEM had sent a document package to the Tribunal in anticipation of the hearing of the Party status request. Counsel for the Applicant objected to the hearing of the Party status request without a stand-alone Motion being brought. The Applicant argued that a stand-alone Motion was necessary as the request for Party status would be contested and that they were contesting the Party status request because WMEM are now expanding their issues from what had originally been stated on the Party status request document. Also, the Applicant argued that they had not yet had a chance to review the documents that had been sent by WMEM the day prior and allowing the Party status request to continue would be a denial of natural justice.
6WMEM argued that a stand-alone Motion date is not necessary and is a waste of time and resources as the request is not complicated. Also, WMEM argued that the documents that they had provided consisted of a proposed Issues List, excerpts from policy documents and legislation, and a map from the Applicant’s materials.
7The Tribunal found that the request for Party status should proceed at this CMC. While it may be appropriate in some circumstances to hear a Party status request by way of a stand-alone Motion, this is not one of them. The submissions and documents that WMEM wish to utilize are not complicated or intricately legalistic. The Tribunal must ensure that these proceedings are fair, just, expeditious, and cost effective. The Tribunal stood the matter down for the Applicant to review the documents.
PARTY STATUS REQUEST
8It should be noted that apart from the Applicant, the other Parties consent to the Party status request of WMEM.
9WMEM informed the Tribunal that they are an industrial company located approximately 300 metres ("m") to 450 m from the proposed development. The WMEM operation consists of breaking and crushing materials to create items like sandpaper. There are three major sources of noise from this facility and the proposed development is within the zone of influence.
10WMEM argued that their involvement in this proceeding as a Party is necessary for the Tribunal to effectively and completely adjudicate on the matters before it because their industry is different from the other Parties, and they intend to call a noise expert and a Land Use Planner at a future hearing.
11The Applicant argued that the industrial site will be 450 m away from the proposed development and adding WMEM as a Party would just be piling on as there are other industries that already have Party status. They continued by arguing that it would be prejudicial to grant WMEM Party status as it would create a replication of the issues the other Parties will be addressing.
12The objective of Rule 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Applicant argued, is to focus the issues so that the Tribunal may adjudicate the matter effectively and completely and it is not necessary for the WMEM to be granted Party status because the issues can be focused by the other approved Parties.
13The Applicant requested that if the Tribunal grants Party status to WMEM, they would like an Order that WMEM may only raise issues as they relate to noise.
14The Tribunal found that WMEM does have a legitimate interest in this matter and satisfies the applicable legislative test to be added as a Party. WMEM is a unique neighbouring industry with their own unique interests. Their presence is necessary for the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues.
15The Tribunal does not agree that their issues need to be limited to noise. However, the Applicant does raise a legitimate concern regarding avoiding duplication of evidence at a hearing. Some issues on their draft Issues List may be duplicative of some issues raised by the other Parties. The Tribunal expects the Parties to work together to draft a Procedural Order and Issues List. It is also expected that a meeting of the experts will focus on the issues and avoid the duplication of evidence at a hearing. Nobody wants, and it would not be appropriate, for a piling on of the issues as it would be contrary to the Tribunal’s mandate of being fair, just, expeditious, and cost-effective.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
A. In accordance with the withdrawal request, Niagara South Vacant Land Condominium Corporation No. 118 is no longer a Party to the proceedings;
B. Washington Mills Electro Minerals is granted Party status; and
C. A draft Procedural Order and Issues List has been submitted by the Parties, attached as Schedule A. It has been approved by the Tribunal and shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Merit Hearing of this matter.
17The Parties may contact the Tribunal for further assistance if needed.
18This Member is not seized.
"A. Sauve"
A. SAUVE
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.
SCHEDULE A