CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000435

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): June 4, 2025

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: July 2, 2025

RE: Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. v Guelph (city)

Correction to: amend Counsel for the City of Guelph

Originally:

Counsel Allison Thornton Ian White

Corrected to:

Counsel Allison Thornton Kip Phillips Alex Ciccone

"Matthew Bryan"

MATTHEW BRYAN

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

ISSUE DATE: June 4, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000435

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27.

Appellant: Paisley & Whitelaw Inc.

Subject: Development charges complaint

Property Address: 1098 Paisley Road

Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000435

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000435

OLT Case Name: Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. v Guelph (city)

Heard: May 15, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Paisley & Whitelaw Inc

Counsel Jennifer Meader Jessica De Marinis

Parties City of Guelph

Counsel Allison Thornton Ian White

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This appeal, pursuant to s.22(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997 (“DC Act”) and associated disposition follows a series of previous hearing events wherein the Tribunal attempted to assist the Parties, as set out above, to narrow if not resolve the dispute brought by Paisley & Whitelaw against the decision of the City of Guelph (“City”) to dismiss a complaint relative to the determination of development charges for property located at 1098 Paisley Road in Guelph (“subject lands”).

2The development proposed for the subject lands is comprised of three buildings (A, B and C). Development charges for A and B were paid on February 28,2019.

3On March 2, 2019, the new Development Charges By-law No. (2019)-203722 came into force.

4Revisions by Paisley & Whitelaw to the original plans for buildings A and B, resulted in an overpayment of $809,318.

5The issue before the Tribunal to determine is how the development charges for Building C, including the application of the overpayment and interest, is to be calculated.

6The City takes the position;

a) “That there is no pre-payment agreement between the Appellant and the City;

b) That there is no refund owing of any amount;

c) That interest was properly credited; and

d) Failing the existence of a valid pre-payment agreement, DCs must be paid at the applicable rates at the time of the building permit. They were calculated properly in accordance with the DC Act and by-law, and the Appellant was fully credited in accordance with the DC Act and by-law, and the Appellant was fully credited with interest on the amounts held on deposit with interest as a rate that exceeded the City’s rate of return.”

6The Tribunal received and heard oral evidence from 2 witnesses on behalf of the Appellant, and 2 witnesses on behalf of the City.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

7The Tribunal, having considered all of the evidence and submissions, and having revisited all pertinent sections of the DC Act, finds as follows:

a) the Tribunal is not persuaded by the contention of the Appellant that there was consensus on the understanding that a pre-payment agreement had been entered into between the Parties. Clearly the matter would not be subject of this appeal if in fact that had been the case;

b) a strict reading of the plain language of the DC Act and the case law make it clear that the concept of fairness or “equitable remedy” does not factor into how the determination before the Tribunal is to be made. There is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to determine fairness on the application of the By-law in a site-specific matter. The powers of the Tribunal may be broader when an appeal of an entirely new by-law is brought to a hearing. That determination is not however before the Tribunal and therefore not germane to these considerations; and,

c) on the question of interest and if or when it is was paid, the Tribunal, having made determinations a) and b), prefers the rigor and rationale of the evidence and of the City, The question as to whether interest was owing for the period of 2019 and 2022 when the plans were revised, an action solely at the discretion of the Appellant, cannot in the opinion of the Tribunal, reasonably be the responsibility of the City.

ORDER

8THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is hereby dismissed.

“Sharyn Vincent”

SHARYN VINCENT

VICE-CHAIR

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.