Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 22, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002507

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 20 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Toronto

Request for: Request for an Order Awarding Costs

Costs sought against: South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association

Heard: June 30, 2025, by Written Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties City of Toronto

Counsel D. Abimbola R. Kallio

Parties South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association

Counsel E. Gillespie

DECISION DELIVERED BY J. INNIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns a motion for costs (“Motion”) brought by the City of Toronto (“City”) against South Junction Triangle Grows Neighborhood Association (“SJTG”) pursuant to Rule 23.4(b) of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). The City seeks an order of $5,000 in costs arising from what it submits as unreasonable conduct by SJTG in failing to pay $500 in mandatory witness attendance fees following the issuance of summons for four City staff.

BACKGROUND

2The earlier motion pertaining to the attendance money owing arises from a nine-day hearing that commenced on July 4, 2023, in relation to an appeal by Lamb Sterling Corp under sections 22(7) and s.34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) (OLT-22-002507 and OLT-22-002508). The appeal followed Council's failure to adopt a proposed Official Plan Amendment and to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment application for lands known municipally as 1405, 1407, 1409, an 1409A Bloor Street West, and 229, 231, and 231A Sterling Road.

3On October 18, 2024, the Tribunal issued an Interim Order allowing the appeals in part, amending the Official Plan and Zoning By-law in principle, and withholding its Final Order pending confirmation from the City solicitor that the Applicant had satisfied all required conditions.

4During the course of that hearing, SJTG, a Party to the proceeding, requested and obtained summons issued by the Tribunal for four City staff witnesses. The summons forms, issued by the Tribunal included a section outlining the requirement to pay attendance money pursuant to 13.7 of the Rules. On June 14, 2023, Ms. Cara Sweeny acting on behalf of SJTG, emailed the City to confirm whether attendance money would be required and indicated that she would pay it if it was required. That same day, the City responded confirming that attendance money would be required and provided instructions for payment.

5Despite receiving confirmation on June 14, 2023, that attendance money would be required, SJTG did not make a payment prior to the hearing. Subsequently, the City provided two additional reminders on July 18 and August 21, 2024, to SJTG that payment was required. In its August 21, 2024, correspondence, the City advised Ms. Sweeny that the attendance money would need to be paid by Monday, August 26, 2024, or steps would be taken to recover the fees. The City also offered the option of paying the attendance money by installments and invited Ms. Sweeny to contact them to discuss the matter and make the necessary arrangements. No response from Ms. Sweeny or SJTG was received. The City then filed a motion with the Tribunal seeking enforcement of payment of the attendance fees.

6On April 1, 2025, the Tribunal issued a Decision regarding the City's motion requesting payment of outstanding attendance money by SJTG for the summons of City staff during the nine-day hearing. The Tribunal found that SJTG was obligated to pay attendance money in accordance with Rule 13.7 of the Rules and ordered SJTG to pay $500 to the City.

7Following the April 1, 2025, Decision, SJTG submitted a Request for Review pursuant to Rule 25 of the Tribunal’s Rules. In its request, SJTG sought to set aside the Tribunal’s Order requiring it to pay witness fees and argued, among other things, that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the issue, that SJTG had fulfilled its obligations under the Rules, and that the City's Motion was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. In a written disposition, the Chair of the Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that SJTG had not established a convincing or compelling case for review. The Chair concluded that SJTG failed to identify any error in the Member’s reasoning or conclusions.

8The present Motion arises from the City's effort to recover the original attendance money. The City submitted that SJTG's failure