ISSUE DATE: March 27, 2025
CASE NO.: OLT-24-000535
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Augend 189 Dundas West Village Properties Ltd. c/o Augend Investments Limited
Appellant: Mother Parker’s Tea & Coffee Inc.
Appellant: White Elm Investments Ltd.
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 142
Description: To permit changes to the Mississauga Official Plan related to Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) across the City.
Reference Number: OPA No. 142
Property Address: City Wide
Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000535
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000535
OLT Case Name: Augend Investments Limited v. Mississauga (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Mother Parker’s Tea & Coffee Inc.
Appellant: Edenshaw Developments Limited
Appellant: Orlando Corporation
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 143
Description: To permit changes to the Mississauga Official Plan related to Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) across the City
Reference Number: OPA No. 143
Property Address: City Wide
Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000536
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000535
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Augend 189 Dundas West Village Properties Ltd. c/o Augend Investments Limited
Appellant: Mother Parker’s Tea & Coffee Inc.
Appellant: Edenshaw Developments Limited
Appellant: GCTC Holdings Inc.
Appellant: White Elm Investments Ltd.
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 144
Description: To permit changes to the Mississauga Official Plan related to Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) across the City
Reference Number: OPA No. 144
Property Address: City Wide
Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000537
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000535
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: City of Mississauga
Request for: Request for Directions
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: GCTC Holdings Inc.
Request for: Request for Adjournment
BEFORE:
S. BOBKA MEMBER
BITA M. RAJAEE Monday, the 24th day of March 2025 MEMBER
THESE MATTERS having come before the Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) for a Motion Hearing related to jurisdictional issues in light of subsection 17(36.1.4) of the Planning Act on March 24, 2025, brought by the City of Mississauga (“City”);
AND THE TRIBUNAL having received at the commencement of the Motion Hearing a Motion to Adjourn brought by GCTC Holdings Inc. (“GCTC”), based on the following:
In its Reply materials, the City: a) changed the nature of the relief it is seeking with its Motion and b) filed new evidence.
With regard to the first, GCTC argued that in its Reply the City fundamentally changed the legal position and the position of the Affiant by now saying that policy 5.7.4.2 is appealable, whereas the City had originally taken the position that policies 5.7.4.1 and 5.7.4.2 were both unappealable. GCTC argued that the two policies are intricately linked, that removal of one from the Motion could impact the other, and that GCTC should have time to consider and respond to those implications.
In terms of the new evidence, GCTC stated that in the Reply Affidavit, the City’s Affiant included new information regarding Special Policy Areas, maximum height limits achieving minimum density targets, how Richmond Hill and Oakville’s policies on same compare to the City’s and the process the City uses to determine whether maximum heights meet minimum density. If the adjournment was not granted, the City’s Affiant would need to testify at this Motion to allow the Parties a chance to cross-examine him on new materials raised in the Reply.
In total, as the City’s Motion is requesting that the Tribunal extinguish part of GCTC’s appeal by finding it to be unappealable, GCTC, and all Parties, should have the full opportunity and sufficient time to respond before its right to appeal is extinguished, and that the appropriate cure is for the Tribunal to provide a short adjournment. In the alternative, if GCTC was to proceed with the Motion as scheduled, it would be prejudiced by not being able have adequate time to respond to the City’s changed position and new information provided. Moreover, the Tribunal would not have adequate information before it to make a fair and just decision on the very important question of a Party’s right to appeal.
AND THE TRIBUNAL having received the City’s response to GCTC’s Motion, as follows:
Nothing it provided in its Reply is improper, as the additional information in the Reply was provided as a matter of completeness.
The City changed its position regarding policy 5.7.4.2 based on a compelling argument raised by White Elm Investments Limited (“White Elm”). The City stated that policies 5.7.4.1 and 5.7.4.2 are connected and that the relationship between those policies hasn’t changed; however, the City now concludes that policy 5.7.4.2 is not protected from appeal, and so it was dropped from the Motion.
Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure states that hearing dates are fixed, and the City argued that in this instance, the circumstances are not compelling and the adjournment should not be granted.
Providing GCTC with an adjournment is prejudicial to the City, as it will have to incur the unnecessary expenditure of time and resources.
THE TRIBUNAL having considering these submissions, and receiving no additional arguments or objections from the other Parties with respect to the adjournment, finds that:
policies 5.7.4.1 and 5.7.4.2 are related and that removal of one from the Motion could impact the other;
some new matters were raised in the City’s Reply affidavit and granting the adjournment would allow GCTC (and any other Parties) to respond which would thereby allow the Tribunal to make a fair and just decision;
the prejudice to GCTC is greater if the adjournment is not granted than the prejudice to the City if it is granted; and it is noted that the other Parties have not raised any prejudice issues regarding the adjournment;
an adjournment resolves the issue of having the City’s Affiant testify at the Motion Hearing as was proposed, a matter that was a concern of both White Elm and GCTC; and
seeking a denial of a right to appeal is an extraordinary remedy. The Tribunal finds GCTC’s argument compelling that the Tribunal did not have all the information it needed to make a fair and just decision on this Motion if it proceeded as scheduled.
AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Motion to Adjourn is granted and the City’s Motion is rescheduled to take place on Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. on:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541 Access code: 638-422-541
AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Parties choosing to submit Surreply must serve their materials to the Tribunal Case Coordinator and all Parties, on or before 3:00 p.m. on Monday, March 31, 2025;
AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the City of Mississauga must serve a Reply (if any) to the Parties’ Surreply to the Tribunal Case Coordinator and all Parties, on or before 3:00 p.m. on Monday, April 7, 2025;
AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that a revised Hearing Plan be submitted to the Tribunal Case Coordinator and all Parties, on or before 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Wednesday, April 9, 2025.
“Euken Lui”
EUKEN LUI ACTING REGISTRAR
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.