Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 29, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000173
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27
Appellant: Sarah Gairdner
Description: Determination of the development charges
Reference Number: DCOLT-2025-001
Property Address: 860 19th Sideroad
Municipality/UT: King/York Region
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000173
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000173
OLT Case Name: Gairdner v. King (Township) et al.
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 10(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by: Township of King
Request for: Request for Directions
Heard: August 25, 2025
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Sara Gairdner
Michael Foderick Jamie Cole
Regional Municipality of York
Mercedes Mueller
Township of King
Alexander J. Suriano Tom Halinski
DECISION DELIVERED BY A. MASON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the decision arising from a written Motion for Directions brought with respect to an appeal under s. 22(2) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. c. 27 (“DCA”), regarding the lack of a decision by the Township of King (“Township”) and the Regional Municipality of York (“Region”) (together, “Moving Parties”) with respect to complaints made under s. 20 of the Act (“Complaints”), for the property located at 860 19th Sideroad, Township of King (“Property”) owned by Sara Gairdner (“Responding Party”).
2At a first case management conference on July 7, 2025, the Tribunal found that setting the matter down for a Hearing of the Merits at that time would be premature because the Parties differed on whether the Appeal itself was validly before it. In short, the Parties disagreed whether payment of a development charge (“DC”) is a prerequisite for bringing a complaint under s. 20 of the DCA, and by extension whether the Appeal by the Moving Party of its Complaints, brought without payment of the underlying DC, is valid. As such, the Tribunal set down a Motion to resolve this jurisdictional dispute between the Parties and determine if the Appeal may proceed.
3Having reviewed and considered the submissions of the Parties, the Tribunal finds that s. 20 of the DCA does not require that the payment of a DC is a precondition to the filing of a complaint. The Tribunal dismisses the Motion and directs that the Appeal proceed to a Hearing of the Merits.
BACKGROUND
4The Property is approximately 53 acres in size, comprised of a woodlot and agricultural fields. The Responding Party is the registered owner of the Property which contains one single detached dwelling (“Existing Dwelling”).
5In 2023, the Responding Party applied for, and received, zoning approval to build one additional single detached dwelling on the Property (“Future Dwelling”), while also retaining the Existing Dwelling that will be repurposed into a farm help residence to “facilitate enhanced agricultural activities” on the Property. The Responding Party intends to reside in the Future Dwelling.
6The Responding Party applied for a building permit to construct the Future Dwelling and received a “Development Charges – Receipt Request” (“DC Receipt”) from the Region and Township under the DCA for amounts determined to be owed for the Future Dwelling.
7The DC Receipt indicated the Appellant owed $99,663.00 in Township and Region DCs as follows:
a. $54,742.00 in Region DCs; and
b. $44,921.00 in Township DCs (together, “Disputed DC Charge”)
8The Responding Party alleges that the DC Receipt was issued in error and takes the position that the Future Dwelling is exempt from the payment of DCs pursuant to s. 2(3.3) of the DCA, which sets out a series of exemptions for additional residential units in new residential buildings. Specifically, the Responding Party claims s. 2(3.3)1., which provides an exemption for the creation of “a second residential unit in a new detached house… on a parcel of land on which residential use, other than ancillary residential use, is permitted, if all buildings and structures ancillary to the new detached house…will contain no more than one residential unit” applies to the Future Dwelling.
9Through a series of meetings and correspondence between the Parties, representatives for the Township and Region set out their position that the Future Dwelling does not qualify for the exemption under s. 2(3.3) 1. of the DCA.
10In November 2024, with the Parties at an impasse, Counsel for the Responding Party submitted the Complaints to the Township and Region under s. 20 of the DCA, which states:
Complaint to council of municipality
20 (1) A person required to pay a development charge, or the person’s agent, may complain