Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 19, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001085
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: DD Real Estate Developments Limited & Ideal Capital Partners Inc.
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 11
Description: To permit the replacement of Zoning By-law 160-90 and By-law 61-16 where it currently applies to the municipal boundary.
Reference Number: OPA No. 11
Property Address: All lands within the City of Brantford, including the former County lands.
Municipality: Brantford
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001085
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001085
OLT Case Name: BSC Landco Inc. et al v Brantford (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellants: BSC Landco Inc., DD Real Estate Developments Limited & Ideal Capital Partners Inc. et al
Subject: By-law No. 124-2024
Description: To permit the replacement of Zoning By-law 160-90 and By-law 61-16 where it currently applies to the municipal boundary.
Reference Number: ZBA 124-2024
Property Address: All lands within the City of Brantford, including the former County lands.
Municipality: Brantford
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001086
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001085
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 10(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: City of Brantford
Request for: Request for Directions
Heard: March 4, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| City of Brantford | Geoff Daley |
| DD Real Estate Developments Limited & Ideal Capital Partners Inc. | Eric Davis |
| Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. | Jessica De Marinis, Jennifer Meader (in absentia), Mark de Jong (in absentia) |
| Mattamy (Powerline) Limited, Mattamy (419 Powerline) Limited, Mattamy (466 King George) Limited, & 1000089067 Ontario Limited (“Mattamy”) | Denise Baker, Sylvain Rouleau (in absentia) |
| KSNADG Lynden Park Inc | Caroline Jordan, Patrick Duffy (in absentia), Jonathan Chang (in absentia) |
| BSC Landco Inc | Alex Ciccone |
| LIV Communities lnc., LIV (Birkett) lnc., LIV (Conklin) lnc., & LIV Developments Ltd. (“LIV”) | Russell Cheeseman, Stephanie Fleming (in absentia) |
| Granite Canadian Holdings Ltd. Partnership & Granite Property Nominee Inc. | Jonathan Marun-Batista, Andrea Skinner (in absentia) |
| Primont (Brantford1) Inc. & Primont (Brantford 2) Inc. | Evan Barz, Chris Barnett (in absentia) |
| Welton & Innes G.P. Inc. | Sarah Kagan, Ira Kagan (in absentia) |
| Canadian National Railway | Diana Doracin, Katarzyna Sliwa (in absentia) |
| S. C. Johnson & Son Inc. | Alan Heisey |
| TSTL (Brantford) Building Corporation, FHC (211 Brantford) Ltd, 2546417 Ontario Inc., & Hans Holding (Brantford) Ltd. | Alex Lusty, Lauren Cao (in absentia) |
| Lafarge Canada Inc. | Mithea Murugesu, Sean Ovas (in absentia), Kim Mullin (in absentia) |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY Gregory J. Ingram ON march 4, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1These proceedings are pertaining to a Notice of Motion (“Motion”) of the Corporation of the City of Brantford (“City”) which seeks to scope appeals of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law No.124-2024 (“CZBL”) and to bring the provisions of the CZBL into full force and effect city wide, except as specifically identified by the appeals before the Tribunal. Appeals were launched by DD Real Estate Developments Limited & Ideal Capital Partners Inc. et al (“Appellant Parties”) against the City’s passing of the new CZBL pursuant to 34 (19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”).
2The Motion seeks:
- An Order abridging the time required for service;
- An Order deeming the CZBL be in full force and effect as of the date of passing, September 24, 2024, save and except the entirety of the CZBL which will remain under appeal on a site specific or area specific basis for the properties/areas under appeal; and
- That the approval and coming into force of the CZBL is without prejudice and shall not have the effect of limiting:
- the position of any Party with respect to their site specific or area specific appeals of the CZBL;
- the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, deletions, or additions to the unapproved portions of the CZBL on a site or area specific basis; and
- the City’s right to assert that the approved portions of the CZBL be applied to the specific sites or areas without modification on the basis that they constitute good planning.
3These proceedings also dealt with a Response to Motion from DD Real Estate Developments Limited & Ideal Capital Partners Inc. (“DD”) in support of the scoping Motion brought by the City as outlined above and requesting that should the CZBL be brought into full force and effect as it applies to the property under appeal known municipally as 264 Erie Avenue, “it would then …withdraw its appeal of the CZBL.”
4On February 27, 2025, the Tribunal granted DD’s request to withdraw its appeal of Official Plan Amendment 11.
MOTION HEARING
5The materials before the Tribunal are:
- Exhibit 1: Notice of Motion circulated on February 20, 2025;
- Exhibit 2: Notice of Motion Record – City of Brantford; and
- Response to Notice of Motion - DD Real Estate Developments Limited & Ideal Capital Partners Inc.
6The Tribunal granted the abridgement request for the Motion in accordance with the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, under Rule 10.
7The City submitted that the Motion (see paragraph [2]) has been brought to “streamline and simplify” the development and approval process and allow other development applications to proceed to the site plan/building permit review phase in the City. Counsel submitted that the new CZBL is more up to date and offers more contemporary planning rationale which will help the City to meet its provincial housing targets.
8Counsel submitted that while some Appellant Parties originally appealed the CZBL on a City-wide basis, all have now agreed to scope their appeals to their specific site or area and the relief sought is on consent, or at least without objection, from the Appellant Parties.
9The City submitted that the Tribunal has the authority to order that the CZBL come into full force and effect, save and except for the site-specific or area specific properties pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Act.
10The City indicated that the relief sought as outlined in paragraph [2] above is supported by the planning evidence contained in the Affidavit of Alan Waterfield (“Planner Waterfield”) who is the Acting Chief Planner/Director of Planning for the City. Planner Waterfield is a Registered Professional Planner and a full member with the Canadian Institute of Planners.
11Planner Waterfield’s sworn affidavit opines that it is “appropriate to scope the appeals on a site specific or area specific basis” given that the appeals are only related to specific properties or areas within the City and that the Appellant Parties have consented to scope their respective appeals.
12Planner Waterfield proffered that by allowing the CZBL to come into force on a City wide basis there will be a reduction in the number of zoning by-law amendments and Minor Variance Applications which reduces the time and costs associated with the planning process.
MOTION FINDINGS AND DECISION
13Having received Motion materials from the City on consent of the Parties and supported by the uncontested planning opinion evidence of Planner Waterfield, the Tribunal granted oral approval of the Motion and is satisfied that bringing the CZBL into full force and effect except for the Appellant lands, represents good planning.
14The Tribunal concurs that approving this Motion uncomplicates the planning and development process in the City while still respecting the appeal process launched by the Appellant Parties with respect to their specific lands.
15The Tribunal concurs with the City’s submission and Planner’s evidence that s. 34(31) of the Act is applicable and gives the Tribunal the authority to grant the Motion:
[The Tribunal] may make an order providing that any part of the by-law not in issue in the appeal shall be deemed to have come into force on the day the by-law was passed.
CASE MANAGEMENT
16The Tribunal heard submissions from the City regarding future hearing dates and on consent of the Appellant Parties, adjourned the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) scheduled for April 30, 2025, to provide the Parties with additional time to resolve issues that remain.
17The Tribunal set a second CMC to proceed by video on Friday May 30, 2025, at 10 am. The Parties were directed to provide a written update to the Tribunal by Friday May 16, 2025, indicating the status of deliberations with each of the Appellant Parties and a proposed agenda for the CMC. Where issues between an Appellant Party and the City remain, a draft Procedural Order is expected to be submitted.
18Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293
Access Code: 656-004-293
19Parties are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
20Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (Toll-Free) +1-888-299-1889. The Access Code is as indicated above.
21Individuals 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.
22The Member is not seized, and no further notice is required.
ORDERS
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Case Management Conference set for April 30, 2025, is adjourned and the new date and particulars of the second Case Management Conference are set out above beginning at paragraph [17].
24UPON MOTION to the Tribunal by the City of Brantford for an order approving certain parts of Comprehensive Zoning By-law No.124-2024 and to scope appeals pursuant to s. 34(31) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990 c P 13.
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motion brought by the City of Brantford is granted, and the Tribunal provides the following Directions for the purposes:
a. That the entirety of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law Number 124-2024 which Council for The Corporation of the City of Brantford passed on September 24, 2024, attached as Schedule “A” to this order shall be deemed to be in full force and effect as of the day By-law 124-2024 was passed, save and except.
i. The entirety of the CZBL which will remain under appeal on a site specific or area specific basis for the properties/areas set out in Schedule “B” to this Order;
b. And that the approval and coming into force of the CZBL shall be strictly without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of limiting:
i. The position any Party may take with respect to their site specific or area specific appeals of the CZBL, such that the parties will be fully at liberty to challenge and test the planning merits of the CZBL as they apply to their respective delineated sites or areas;
ii. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, deletions, or additions to the unapproved portions of the CZBL on a site or area specific basis, including issuing future Orders respecting the unapproved portions of the CZBL which are inconsistent with the Order resulting from this motion, provided that the parties shall be bound by the commitments made by them to scope their appeals on a site specific or area specific basis; or
iii. The City’s right to assert that the City Council enacted portions of the CZBL should be approved, and applied to the specific sites or areas, without modification, on the basis that they constitute good planning, are consistent with the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statements or conform to the City’s Official Plan. The City will not, however, be entitled to rely upon the partial approval (scoping) as a reason to dismiss the appeals in whole or in part.
“Gregory J. Ingram”
GREGORY J. INGRAM 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”
SCHEDULE “B”