Magnum General Contracting Inc. v. Scugog (Township), 2025 CanLII 79649

ISSUE DATE: August 08, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001026

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Magnum General Contracting Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit the development of 78 townhouse units

Reference Number: SP/04/2021

Property Address: Part of Lot 18, Conc. 5, known as Part 2, Plan 40R-20203 (north parcel) and Block 123, Plan 40M-2029 (south parcel), Ward 2

Municipality/UT: Scugog/Durham

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001026

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001026

OLT Case Name: Magnum General Contracting Inc. v. Scugog (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Magnum General Contracting Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of 78 townhouse units

Reference Number: S-S-2020-01

Property Address: Part of Lot 18, Conc. 5, known as Part 2, Plan 40R-20203 (north parcel) and Block 123, Plan 40M-2029 (south parcel), Ward 2

Municipality/UT: Scugog/Durham

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001027

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001026

OLT Case Name: Magnum General Contracting Inc. v. Scugog (Township)

Heard: August 7, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Magnum General Contracting Inc.

Katarzyna Sliwa Jessica Chen

Township of Scugog

Mark Joblin Alexandra Whyte

Regional Municipality of Durham

Robert Woon

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. MASON ON AUGUST 7, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from a hearing event to consider a proffered settlement of the appeals brought under ss. 41(12) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Magnum General Contracting Inc. (“Appellant”) regarding the failure of the Township of Scugog (“Township”) to make a decision on an application for Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) and an application for Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) for the development of 78 townhouse units within the timeframe prescribed by the Act for the property address set out in the Title of Proceedings above (“Subject Property”).

2At request of all the Parties, the Tribunal considered the proffered settlement of the SPA, DPA, and an extensive set of conditions of approval for both instruments together (together, “Settlement”).

3At an earlier CMC, the Regional Municipality of Durham (“Region”) was granted Party status in the DPS appeal, but not the SPA.

4Scott Waterhouse, a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, provided a sworn affidavit and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide land use planning opinion evidence in relation to the matters under appeal. Mr. Waterhouse provided viva voce opinion evidence at the hearing event in support of the Settlement.

SITE CONTEXT

5The Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Simcoe Street and King Street in the Port Perry area of the Township. It is 1.62 hectares in size, is currently vacant, and is located adjacent to an existing residential subdivision. The existing residential subdivision to the north and west is comprised of detached dwellings. To the east of the Subject Property, the lands are partly vacant and zoned for a mix of commercial and residential uses. South of the Subject Property, the lands are outside of the Port Perry Urban Area boundary.

6Related Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments were previously approved by the Tribunal in a Decision issued on September 13, 2024. As a result of the earlier Tribunal approval, under the Township Official Plan (“Township OP”) the Subject Property is designated “Residential” and zoned “RM3-16 Urban Residential Multiple Type Three Exception 16”, which both permit back-to-back townhouses in addition to other residential built forms. The Region Official Plan (“Region OP”) designates the Subject Property as “Community Areas”, which is intended predominantly for housing purposes.

SETTLEMENT AND PLANNING RATIONALE

7Mr. Waterhouse testified to the Tribunal about the changes that led to the proffered Settlement, which related to detailed engineering matters such as grading, retaining walls, stormwater management, and hydrogeological details. Mr. Waterhouse advised the Tribunal that, through a series of technical report re-submissions, the Parties were able to come to an agreement on how to satisfy the outstanding engineering matters achieved through the single set of detailed conditions of approval for the DPS and the SPA, set out as Attachment 3 to this Decision (“Conditions of Approval”). Counsel for the Parties together advised the Tribunal that, due to the nature of the interrelation of the DPS and SPA, the single set of conditions was the most expeditious and efficient way to implement the proffered Settlement.

8Mr. Waterhouse opined that the Settlement has regard for the matters of provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act, specifically subsections 2(h), 2(j), and 2(p).

9Mr. Waterhouse further opined that the Settlement is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”) by providing development within a settlement area, facilitating efficient development minimizing land use consumption and servicing costs, and providing a mix of housing options.

10Mr. Waterhouse opined that the Settlement conforms to the policies in the Township OP and the Region OP by providing appropriate infill development with a range of housing types in a compact townhouse typology along existing arterial roads.

11In summary, Mr. Waterhouse opined that the Settlement met all statutory tests in s. 51 of the Act, has appropriate regard for those matters in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to the policies and objectives in the Township OP and Region OP, and constitutes good planning.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

12Having reviewed and accepted the uncontested affidavit and viva voce evidence of Mr. Waterhouse, the Tribunal finds the proffered Settlement implemented through the Conditions of Approval at Attachment 3 does, indeed, meet the statutory tests in s. 51 of the Act, has appropriate regard for those matters in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to the policies and objectives in the Township OP and Region OP, and constitutes good planning.

ORDER

13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed in part as follows:

The Site Plan, attached as Attachment 1 to this Order, is approved, subject to the Conditions of Approval set out at Attachment 3 to this Order.
The Draft Plan of Subdivision, attached as Attachment 2 to this Order, is approved, subject to fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.
Pursuant to s. 41 of the Planning Act, the Township of Scugog has the authority to clear the Conditions in Attachment 3 as it relates to the Site Plan in Attachment 1.
Pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Township of Scugog has the authority to clear the Conditions in Attachment 3 as it relates to the Draft Plan of Subdivision in Attachment 2, and has authority to administer final approval of the Draft Plan of Subdivision found at Attachment 2 for the purposes of s. 51(58) of the Planning Act.
The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that there are difficulties implementing the Conditions in Attachment 3 in accordance with ss. 41 and 51(56) of the Planning Act. The member is seized of the matter.

“A. Mason”

A. MASON

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3