Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 15, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-001023 OLT-24-000470
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant:
Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the Town of Ajax to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the development of a mix of 660 residential units, a school block, park block, stormwater infiltration/management block, and environmental protection block.
Reference Number:
OPA 2014-006
Property Address:
727 Shoal Point Road
Municipality/UT:
Ajax/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-001023
Legacy Case No:
PL150303
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-001023
Legacy Lead Case No:
PL150303
Case Name:
Magnum Opus Developments (Ajax) Corp. v. Durham (Regional Municipality)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant:
Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Failure of the Region of Durham to announce a decision respecting Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 2014-006
Description:
To permit the development of a mix of 660 residential units, a school block, park block, stormwater infiltration/management block, and environmental
Property Address:
727 Shoal Point Road
Municipality/UT:
Ajax/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-001042
Legacy Case No:
PL150459
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-001023
Legacy Lead Case No:
PL150303
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant:
Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 95- 2003 - neglect of the Town of Ajax to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of a mix of 660 residential units, a school block, park block, stormwater infiltration/management block, and environmental protection block.
Reference Number:
Z2/11
Property Address:
727 Shoal Point Road
Municipality/UT:
Ajax/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-001043
Legacy Case No:
PL150460
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-001023
Legacy Lead Case No:
PL150303
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the Town of Ajax to make a decision
Purpose:
To permit the development of a mix of 660 residential units, a school block, park block, stormwater infiltration/management block, and environmental protection block.
Property Address:
727 Shoal Point Road
Municipality:
Town of Ajax
Municipality File No.:
S-A-2011-02
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-000422
Legacy Case No.:
PL150461
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001023
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL150303
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
Application for three site plan control approval
Property Address:
727 Shoal Point Road (Block 64)
Municipality/UT:
Ajax/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-000470
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-000470
OLT Case Name:
Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc. v. Ajax (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
Application for three site plan control approval
Property Address:
727 Shoal Point Road (Block 65)
Municipality/UT:
Ajax/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-000471
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-000470
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
Application for three site plan control approval
Property Address:
727 Shoal Point Road (Block 66)
Municipality/UT:
Ajax/Durham
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-000472
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-000470
Heard:
February 18, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc. (Magnun Opus Ajax)
Michael Cook John Alati
Town of Ajax (“Municipality”)
Andrew Biggart
Regional Municipality of Durham (“Region”)
Robert Woon
MEMORANDIUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT ON FEBRUARY 18, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This decision arises from a hearing to consider the dispute between the Parties with respect to contested conditions of a draft plan approval of a plan of subdivision and more particularly conditions concerning lands known municipally as 727 Shoal Point Rd (“Subject Lands”)
2The Tribunal heard evidence from all of the Parties, the evidence being from the respective transportation engineer and land use planner proffered by each Party.
3The key issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the Appellant is liable for a pro rata portion of a cost sharing agreement entered into prior to the Appellant owning the Subject Lands, or whether works sought as conditions by the approval authorities should in fact be incorporated in a future Development Charge By-law.
4It is the position of the Region and Municipality that the proposed relocation of the access point triggers the need to widen the road and a nearby bridge, which the Appellant contends has already been or should be identified as planned infrastructure in the Municipality’s Development Charge Study and therefore not an appropriate conditions for an individual development proponent to have to bear.
5The Appellant cited the Niagara Home Builders Association decision, drawing to the attention of the Tribunal the finding in that decision that in order to "settle a dispute and decide whether a particular service is or is not a local service, or a for growth service, for which a development charge should properly and reasonably be collected under a Municipality’s Development Charge By-law, the Tribunal is required to focus upon the function of the service"
CONCLUSION
6The Tribunal having read and considered all of the evidence has concluded that the function of the access is in fact a local service and should not be subject of a development charge.
7The widening of Bayly and the related widening of the bridge, have clearly been considered by the approval authorities in the context of this application, and therefore are appropriately infrastructure improvements, which render them growth related in the eyes of the approval authorities and the Tribunal.
8The Tribunal is persuaded by the following:
- All witnesses agreed, either in chief or when under cross that the changes were both growth related and would benefit the development;
- Similarly all witness agreed, either in chief or when under cross examination that the proposed direct frontage was an optimal solution, with a direct benefit; and,
- Given the benefits. The condition to bear the cost, is therefore reasonable and equitable.
ORDER
9THE TRIBUNAL therefore approves the contested condition and directs that any necessary documents be so finalized and executed prior to the issuance of any building permits.
“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.