Davis v. York (Regional Municipality), 2025 CanLII 21782

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 10, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000494

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1000439324 Ontario Inc. Appellant: Pamela Harakh and Harry Harakh Appellant: Darryl and Teresa Davis

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6 (Village Local Centre)

Municipality: City of Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000494 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000494 OLT Case Name: Davis v. York (Regional Municipality)

Heard: February 27, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Teresa Davis and Darryl Davis Harry Harakh and Pamela Harakh

Paul DeMelo Jason Cherniak (in absentia) Rohan Kompella

City of Richmond Hill (“City”)

Raj Kehar Carlton Thorne

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARON L. DIONNE ON FEBRUARY 27, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The matter comes before the Tribunal in a third Case Management Conference (“CMC”), held in respect of the appeals of the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 18.6 (Village Local Centre) to the City of Richmond Hill (“OPA 18.6”).

STATUS OF APPEALS

2The Tribunal acknowledged that, prior to the start of the CMC, 1000438324 Ontario Inc. and the three Non-Appellant Parties (1277773 Ontario Ltd., Lalu 26 Benson Holding Inc., and Sunup Realty Inc.) had withdrawn their appeal(s).

3The remaining Parties have been engaged in on-going without-prejudice discussions, and such discussions have resulted in some agreement(s) related to the scoping of their respective appeals of the OPA 18.6.

4On consent of the Appellants, the City presented to the Tribunal Appendix A, which is an annotated version of OPA 18.6, and the Tribunal heard submissions of the Parties in respect thereof.

5Harry Harakh and Pamela Harakh have consented to the scoping of their appeal in accordance with Appendix A to OPA 18.6 as is set out in Schedule “A” attached to the Order.

6Darryl and Teresa Davis have withdrawn their appeal of the OPA 18.6 on the basis of the City’s acknowledgement, and the Tribunal’s confirmation of same, that its property at 47 Church Street North, Richmond Hill, while outside of the Village Core designation in OPA 18.6, is nonetheless within a Protected Major Transit Station Area and is specifically located within Protected Major Transit Station No. 45.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

7The Tribunal received and reviewed a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) setting out the remaining issues between the City and Harry Harakh and Pamela Harakh.

8The City intends to bring a Motion in relation to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of the Harry Harakh and Pamela Harakh appeal. The Parties agreed to depart from the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure in relation to deadlines for the exchange of Motion materials, as follows:

• City serves motion materials – four (4) weeks in advance of the Hearing;

• Harry Harakh and Pamela Harakh serve responding materials – 2 weeks in advance of the Hearing;

• City serves reply materials –5 days in advance of Hearing.

9A Motion Hearing is scheduled to commence on Friday, May 9, 2025 at 10 a.m. by video conference.

10Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins, to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733

Access code: 979-388-733

11Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is as indicated above in paragraph 10.

12Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

13Given that without-prejudice discussions are on-going, the Parties were directed to provide a status update to the Tribunal at least two (2) weeks prior to the date scheduled for a Motion Hearing.

14This Member is not seized.

ORDER

15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Official Plan Amendment 18.6 (“OPA 18.6”) came into effect on the day of this Order, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 17(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended,

2. Section 1 of this Order does not apply to the appealed policies and schedules referred to in Section 3 of this Order to the extent that those policies apply to the following lands:

a. The geographic area of OPA 18.6 appealed by the Appellants Pamela Harakh and Harry Harakh, being the lands depicted in highlights in Schedule “B” attached hereto and municipally known as (i) 32, 42, 52, 58, 60, 66, 74, and 76 Major Mackenzie Drive West; (ii) 56, 58, and 60 Elizabeth Street South; and (iii) 10030, 10058, and 10066 Yonge Street, in the City of Richmond Hill;

3. The appealed policies and schedules referred to in Section 2 of this Order are the polices and schedules that are highlighted or marked as such in the annotated OPA 18.6 attached to this Order as Schedule “A”.

4. The coming into effect of certain portions of OPA 18.6 shall be strictly without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of:

a. limiting the resolution of an Appellants’ appeal; or

b. affecting a party’s right to seek to modify, delete or add to the unapproved associated text.

5. The coming into effect of certain portions of OPA 18.6 is without prejudice to the positions taken by the Appellants such that, if these appeals proceed either on their own or as may be consolidated with other appeals, the City will not take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve site- or area-specific modifications to the affected sections, tables, definitions, maps, schedules, and associated text on the basis that they deviate from or are inconsistent with such sections, tables, definitions, maps, schedules, and associated text on a City-wide basis. However, this does not affect the City’s right to assert that the approved sections, tables, definitions, maps, schedules, and associated text should be applied to the specific area or sites without modification on the basis that they constitute good planning.

6. Notwithstanding anything ordered above, the City has not conceded that any portions of OPA 18.6 that have not come into effect are properly under appeal, and the City has reserved the right to bring motions or take any other action to have the breadth and scope of any appeal or the validity of a portion or the entirety of any appeal determined by the Tribunal at a future date.

7. Any potential settlements may be brought forward for approval by the Tribunal by way of a Hearing on the planning merits of a settlement, upon prior notice and circulation of the information to the Parties.

16AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Parties shall provide the Tribunal with a status update no later than April 25, 2025.

“Sharon L. Dionne”

SHARON L. Dionne 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 B

The addresses scoped in Pamela Harakh and Harry Harakh’s appeal are limited to the highlighted geographic area above, including the following addresses:

• 32, 42, 52, 58, 60, 66, 74, and 76 Major Mackenzie Drive West;
• 56, 58, and 60 Elizabeth Street South; and
• 10030, 10058, and 10066 Yonge Street, in the City of Richmond Hill.