Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 26, 2025

CASE NO.: OLT-24-001211 OLT-24-000746

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 6980848 Canada Corporation Subject: Appeal of Decision to Adopt Official Plan Amendment Number 35 Description: To permit an amendment to the Official Plan to update the designation at 1600 Stagecoach Road and to update the Village of Greely Secondary Plan Reference Number: D01-01-23-0016 Property Address: 1600 Stagecoach Road Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001211 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001211 OLT Case Name: 6980848 Canada Corporation v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 6980848 Canada Corporation Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Refusal by Approval Authority Description: To permit a plan of subdivision consisting of 71 residential lots. Reference Number: D07-16-24-0001 Property Address: 1600 Stagecoach Road Municipality/UT: City of Ottawa OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000746 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000746 OLT Case Name: 6980848 Canada Corporation v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request By: City of Ottawa Request For: Request for Consolidation

Heard: April 1, 2025 Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
6980848 Canada Corporation (“Applicant”)	K. Gossen, G. O’Brien
City of Ottawa (“City”)	T. Marc

DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises out of a Motion for consolidation relating to the appeals that impact the lands located at 1600 Stagecoach Road, in the Village of Greely (“Subject Lands”).

2The two appeals currently before the Tribunal are the following:

• OLT-24-000746 – a site-specific appeal related to a proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (“POS”).

• OLT-24-001211- a City initiated Official Plan Amendment (“OPA 35”) that removes the Subject Lands from the Village of Greely.

3A third pending appeal regarding the refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) for the Subject Lands has also been requested to be consolidated.

4The City is seeking an Order to consolidate all the appeals.

5The Applicant is seeking an Order denying the request of the City and in accordance with Rule 16.1 consolidate the site-specific appeals only, being the proposed ZBA and POS (collectively the Site-Specific Appeals”). The Applicant also requests that the OPA 35 appeal should be stayed or adjourned until the final determination of the Site-Specific Appeals.

6The Tribunal denies the request to consolidate and hear together the POS and OPA 35 appeals. The Tribunal will not consider the proposed ZBA for consolidation at this time.

BACKGROUND

7On November 24, 2021, the City adopted a new Official Plan (“OP”), designating the Subject Lands as “Rural Countryside,” being outside of, but abutting, the Village boundary.

8On November 4, 2022, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”) modified and approved the OP, including a modification that placed the Subject Lands within the Village boundary, but did not change the specific land use designation.

9On September 13, 2023, the City adopted Official Plan Amendment 5 (“OPA 5”) containing many amendments to the new OP, including building upon the MMAH modification by designating the Subject Lands as “Village” in the OP and as “Village Residential” in the Greely Secondary Plan. MMAH approval was not required, and no appeals were filed. OPA 5 came into full force and effect.

10On December 6, 2023, Bill 150 came into effect, which included the Official Plan Adjustments Act (“OPAA”) deeming modifications to the new OP to have never been made [s. 1(1)] and retroactively approving the OP as of November 4, 2022 [s. 1(3)].

11On February 7, 2024, given the recent retraction of modifications by the OPAA, City Council requested the MMAH to introduce legislation that would retroactively remove from OPA 5 the land use designation changes pertaining to the Subject Lands.

12On February 26, 2024, the City declared the Applicant’s Subdivision application as complete. The Subdivision application proposed the development of 71 residential lots on the Subject Lands.

13On May 2, 2024, City staff provided the Applicant with comprehensive City department and third-party agency comments on the Draft Plan application, and community comments from residents. Later in May, the City provided comments on hydrogeological and geotechnical matters to the Applicant.

14On May 16, 2024, Bill 162 came into effect with ties back to Bill 150 but made no changes affecting the Subject Lands.

15On June 19, 2024, the City advised Sunset Lakes that its Subdivision application is refused.

16On or about July 11, 2024, the City initiated a draft OPA 35 to place the Subject Lands outside the Village boundary and to return its designation to “Rural Countryside.”

17On August 16, 2024, Sunset Lakes made written submissions to the City in opposition to OPA 35 which would affect the Subject Lands and change the designations implemented by OPA 5.

18On September 20, 2024, the Applicant submitted a ZBA application to implement the Development.

19On September 24, 2024, the Applicant received notice that OPA 35 would first be considered by the Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committee (“ARAC”) on October 3, 2024, and then by the Planning and Housing Committee on October 9, 2024.

20On October 16, 2024, the City requested further materials for the ZBA application, which were provided to the City on the same day, completing the application. The City confirmed that the ZBA application as revised on October 16, 2024, was complete.

21On October 17, 2024, the Tribunal heard a motion initiated by the Applicant to confirm the land-use designation on the Subject Lands.

22Through a Decision issued on October 23, 2024, the Tribunal confirmed that the Subject Land’s Official Plan designation as amended by OPA 5 is: within the Village boundary (meaning they are within the City’s settlement area); “Village” in the Official Plan; and “Village Residential” in the Greely Secondary Plan (“October Decision”).

23On October 30, 2024, City Council adopted OPA 35.

24On December 3, 2024, the Applicant appealed the City’s decision to adopt OPA 35.

25On February 26, 2025 ARAC considered the ZBA application. On February 12, 2025, City council refused the ZBA application.

26On March 5, 2025, the Applicant appealed City Council’s decision to refuse the ZBA application.

27The following materials were identified as Exhibits in respect of this Motion:

• Exhibit 1- City Notice of Motion

• Exhibit 2- Responding Motion of Record of Applicant

• Exhibit 3- City Reply to Responding Motion of Record

• Exhibit 4- City Book of Authorities

• Exhibit 5- Applicant Book of Authorities

MOTION for consolidation

Position of the City

28In support of the motion for consolidation, the City argues the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 reversed retroactively to the November 4, 2022 settlement area modifications that were made by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing respecting lands for which the proposed POS and ZBA are proposed;

29The City stated that while the City adopted OPA 5 on September 13, 2023, which redesignated the Subject Lands on OP Schedules and the SP, the rationale was due to the Minister adding lands to the village but without a designation.

30The City identified that OPA 5 was brought before City Council and adopted before the OPAA came into force.

31The City contends that OPA 35 is consistent with the views of the Government of Ontario as enacted through the OPAA that the expansion of settlement areas made by modifications by the Minister on November 4, 2022 be reversed.

32The City argues that the legal effect of the OPAA, s. 3(2) has been held to retroactively override the deemed conformity provisions of the Planning Act, s.24(4).

33The City identified that the Tribunal has the authority to determine when it is appropriate to apply the ‘Clergy Approach’ and when it is appropriate to set it aside.

34The City’s position is that it is appropriate in this case for the OPA, POS and ZBA to be consolidated before the Tribunal so that an appropriate decision taking into account all proper considerations and evidence can be made on the merits.

Position of the Applicant

35The Applicant argues that the consolidation of all the appeals would reward the City for attempting to change the designation of the Subject Lands and remove it from the settlement area to thwart the development proposal; particularly with the following:

• The submission of complete draft POS and draft ZBA applications.

• The Tribunal issued decision of October 23, 2024, confirming that the Subject Lands are within the settlement area and designated for residential development.

36The Applicant advised that no official plan amendment was required for complete development applications, since the appropriate designations were in place and remain in place.

37The Applicant stated that it would be unfair to be required to go through the cost and time associated with a hearing for OPA 35 before a hearing is held on the development applications.

38The Applicant summarized that the Site-Specific Appeals and the OPA 35 Appeal do not have common issues. Consolidating the appeals would not result in efficiencies and it would increase the cost of the proceedings.

Findings

39The Tribunal currently does not have a ZBA appeal relating to the Subject Lands before it in this Hearing. The Tribunal cannot make a decision on a matter that is not properly before it. An additional concern relates to the issue of notice, which will need to be addressed prior to considering the issue of consolidation respecting the pending ZBA. Accordingly; the pending ZBA will not be subject to a determination of consolidation at this time.

40In the October Decision, the Tribunal determined that the OPA 5 is the in-force Official Plan designation for the POS appeal.

41Subsection 12(2) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6 states that the Tribunal shall “adopt any practices and procedures provided for in the rules or that are otherwise available to the Tribunal that, in its opinion, offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the proceedings.”

42Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that the Tribunal may order that two or more proceedings be consolidated, heard at the same time, or heard one after the other, subject to any applicable statutory or regulatory restrictions.

43In the event that proceedings are consolidated, Tribunal Rule 16.2 provides that each Party to the original separate proceedings shall become a Party to the consolidated proceedings and evidence presented in the separate proceedings shall become evidence in the consolidated proceeding. Conversely, if proceedings are heard together but not consolidated, Tribunal Rule 16.3 provides that each Party remains a Party only to its individual proceeding and not to the other Party’s proceeding and, unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, evidence in the hearing is evidence in each proceeding to which it could apply.

44In addressing whether to consolidate or hear two or more appeals together, the Tribunal may consider whether they contain common facts, common issues and/or common elements of law, as well as considerations as to the efficiency and fairness of the proceedings, any prejudice that may result, and the possibility that a decision in one matter may predetermine a subsequent matter or result in the possibility of contradictory decisions. It must also consider the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with all of the issues comprehensively.

45In the present matter, the POS and OPA 35 appeals contain some common fact and issues as both appeals are linked to the Subject Lands. It is anticipated that both appeals will be expected to involve the testimony of similar experts with respect to land use planning. Although the Applicant suggests that the OPA 35 relates to different issues than the POS appeal, there is acknowledgement that there would be some overlap in the witnesses for the appeals. However, the Tribunal has already deemed OPA 5 is the in-force designation for the POS appeal.

46The Applicant argues that the City’s Issues List does not have common issues with the matters to be adjudicated for the OPA 35 Appeal. The Tribunal acknowledges that the Issues List provided by the City relates specifically to the POS appeal, however, the question in the Tribunal’s mind is why would the City provide issues related to OPA 35, since it would be up to the Applicant to identify the issues related to the OPA 35 appeal.

47A consolidation of the POS and OPA 35 appeals would likely result in efficiencies, be expeditious and cost effective as common facts, issues and law would be heard together and greater context would be achieved. However, efficiency, expedition and cost effectiveness cannot override the principle of procedural fairness and natural justice.

48Of concern for the Tribunal are the potential prejudice that may result, and the possibility that a decision in one matter may predetermine a subsequent matter or result in the possibility of contradictory decisions. Consolidating the POS and OPA 35 would result in prejudice to the Applicant and may result in contradictory decisions.

49The Tribunal refers to Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, Re, 2007, CarswellOnt 8003 (“Sunlife”), the Ontario Municipal Board the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice and specifically looks to paras [41] through [44].

50Similar to the references to Sunlife, The Tribunal finds that it cannot consolidate the POS and OPA 35 appeals and ensure that procedural fairness and natural justice would result. As the October Decision identified, the “City is suffering from its own efficiency.”

51The Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that the adjudication of OPA 35 with the POS application after the Applicant has prepared and submitted a complete draft POS application would be unfair considering the application to develop the Subject Lands was in reliance on the fact that the Subject Lands were added to the Village of Greely and re-designated.

52Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal denies the motion to consolidate appeals related to Tribunal File No.s OLT-24-000746 and OLT-24-001211. The ZBA Appeal can be considered for consolidation or to be heard together at such time as it is properly before the Tribunal.

ORDER

53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Motion for consolidation is refused.

54THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the OLT-24-001211 appeal shall be held in abeyance until the Tribunal’s disposition of the OLT-24-000746 appeal.

55The Tribunal may be spoken to should any issues arise with respect to OLT-24-001211 appeal.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST MEMBER

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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.