Magnum Opus Developments (Ajax) Corp. v. Durham (Regional Municipality), 2026 CanLII 33054

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 09, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001023 (Formerly PL150303)

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 OLT Case Name: Magnum Opus Developments (Ajax) Corp. v. Durham (Regional Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 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 subsection 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/Appellant: Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure 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. 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 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Town of Ajax Motion for: Directions (Adjournment) Heard: March 20, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Shoal Bayly Ontario Inc. ("Shoal"/"Applicant"/"Appellant")	John Alati, Michael Cook
Town of Ajax ("Town")	John Hart
Regional Municipality of Durham ("Region")	Robert Woon
Daste Invest (Bayly) Ltd. and Finchrose Development Corporation ("Daste/Finchrose")	Max Reedijk, Katarzyna Sliwa (in absentia)
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ("TRCA")	Did not appear

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON MARCH 20, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is a motion for adjournment ("Motion") of the hearing dates of April 13 to April 29, 2026 filed by the Town.

2The Appellant purchased 727 Shoal Point Road ("subject lands") from Magnum Opus Developments (Ajax) Corporation ("Magnum") and assumed the Magnum applications to the Town and Region. There was a long history to this matter, and for the present purpose of a Motion, the Appellant's appeals with respect to the subject lands are under ss.22(7), 17(40), 34(11), 51(34), and 41(12) of the Planning Act ("Act").

THE APPEALS

3OLT-23-001023 (s. 22(7) of the Act) is an appeal by the Applicant of the Town's failure to adopt the requested Official Plan Amendment (from low density to medium density) (original case no. PL150459).

4OLT-23-001042 (s. 17(40) of the Act) is an appeal by the Applicant of the Region's failure to make a decision regarding OPA 2014-006 (original case no. PL150303).

5OLT-23-001043 (s. 34(11) of the Act) is an appeal by the Applicant of the Town's refusal/neglect to make a decision on a Zoning By-law Amendment (from Agricultural to Residential et al.) (original case no. PL150460).

6OLT- 24-000422 (s. 51(34) of the Act) is an appeal by the Applicant of the Town's failure to make a decision on the draft plan of subdivision application to permit 660 residential units (original case no. PL150461).

7OLT-24-000470 (s. 41(12) of the Act) is a Site Plan application appeal for Block 64 ("470").

8OLT-24-000471 (s. 41(12) of the Act) is a Site Plan application appeal for Block 65 ("471").

9OLT-24-000472 (s. 41(12) of the Act is a Site Plan application appeal for Block 66 ("472").

10The intent of the proposed planning instruments is to facilitate the development of 660 residential units on approximately 42 hectares of land on Shoal Point Road in the Town. The original appellant, Magnum, appealed on the basis of the failure of the Region to adopt an amendment to the Region's Official Plan ("ROP") and on the basis of the failure of the Town to make a decision regarding a proposed amendment to the Town's Official Plan ("TOP"), including an amendment to the Town's Zoning By-law No. 95-2003 and a proposed plan of subdivision. The Site Plan applications were filed for the specified blocks (64, 65, 66).

11The Ontario Municipal Board issued a decision on July 18, 2017, which allowed the appeal in part and approved, in principle, the proposed amendment to the ROP, proposed amendment to the Town Official Plan ("OPA 54"), the proposed subdivision and the conditions of draft plan approval and amendment to the By-law No. 95-2003. The final order was withheld until the final version of planning instruments are received.

12Then in January 2024, the Tribunal issued a decision arising from a Case Management Conference ("CMC") at the request of the Appellant to pursue final approval of the appeals that were approved in principle in 2017. The Appellant requested that a hearing be scheduled. The Tribunal notes the Appellant purchased the site in 2023 from the previous appellant, Magnum, and pursued revisions to the site proposal through planning applications to the Town. Further studies and revisions were filed with the Town. The Town and the Region required additional time to review the re-submissions and a further CMC was scheduled at that time.

13On June 30, 2023, the new owner, Shoal, filed Site Plan applications with the Town, and on August 15, 2023, a motion was made to the Tribunal to deem the Site Plan applications complete.

14On May 1, 2024, a further CMC was held and a procedural order was issued setting a hearing date for nine days, set to commence February 18, 2025.

15On July 29, 2024, a decision was issued which included the three Site Plan applications (470, 471, and 472). A further CMC was scheduled in October 2024, anticipating the decision of the Divisional Courts. All three Site Plan applications were subject to OLT-23-000806 ("806") (Order issued February 1, 2024), which was appealed to Divisional Court by the Town. The matter was for a motion for completeness under 806. The Tribunal ordered that the applications be deemed complete as of June 30, 2023. The Appellant then filed appeals to the Site Plan applications under files 470, 471, and 472.

16The merit hearing was held on February 18, 2025 and the decision was issued August 15, 2025 ("August Decision"). The August Decision was challenged on review. The request for review was granted and the August Decision was set aside, hence the matter was set down for a re-hearing on the merits under a different panel from April 13, 2026 to April 29, 2026, which was the subject of the Town's present Motion.

TOWN'S MOTION

17The Motion was filed March 12, 2026 with the Tribunal. It is supported by an affidavit of Andrew Biggart, sworn March 12, 2026 ("Affidavit").

18The Motion is for:

1. An order abridging the time for the service of this Notice of Motion, if necessary;
2. An order adjourning the subject hearing currently scheduled from April 13, 2026 to the weeks of May 25th and June 1st, 2026, or such other dates as the Tribunal orders; and
3. Such further and other relief as the counsel for the Town may request and as the Tribunal may permit.

19The Motion is filed pursuant to Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules").

Grounds for the Motion

20The grounds are as stated in the Motion and supported by the Affidavit, which are:

1. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing, dated March 5, 2026, scheduling the Hearing in this matter to occur from April 13, 2026, to April 29, 2026 ("Notice").
2. Upon receiving the Notice, Mr. Biggart, counsel for the Town for the Hearing, promptly contacted counsel for the other Parties to request their clients' consent to an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.
3. In doing so, Mr. Biggart explained that he is scheduled to undergo a surgery on April 6, 2026, which is one week before the commencement of the Hearing. Mr. Biggart also advised counsel that, as a result of the new Hearing being scheduled to occur from April 13 to April 29, 2026, he is double booked because he is already scheduled to be in another hearing throughout the week of April 20, 2026, to represent the Town of Orangeville.
4. Mr. Biggart advised that he will be available to proceed with the Hearing on alternate dates, starting in May 2026 and continuing into June 2026.
5. Following the surgery, Mr. Biggart will require time to recover, which will impair his ability to properly prepare for the Hearing scheduled as presently scheduled for commencement April 13, 2026.
6. Mr. Biggart is also already scheduled to attend another hearing during the week of April 20, 2026, and he cannot be in two different hearings at the same time.
7. There is no other lawyer at Mr. Biggart's firm who can represent the Town for this matter given Mr. Biggart's extensive knowledge regarding the history of this matter and the time at which it has been scheduled.
8. Mr. Biggart is not aware of any prejudice to any Party if the Hearing is adjourned for a period of six weeks.

Response by the Other Parties

21The Region consented to the Motion and did not file any response materials.

22Similarly, Daste/Finchrose consented to the Motion and did not file any response materials.

23The Appellant did not file any response materials either and opted to make submissions on the need to fix an early hearing date, starting May 25, 2026. The Appellant was concerned that the re-hearing would be pushed back for too long, considering that this matter has been languishing for a while.

24When questioned by the Tribunal, counsel for the Appellant reluctantly conceded that the Appellant does not oppose the Motion, so long as the new hearing dates are not too far in the future.

25Counsel for the Town submitted that there was no evidence provided by the Appellant in opposition of the Motion, and in any event, Appellant's counsel's submissions do not constitute evidence. Town's counsel asserted that what the Appellant's counsel submitted could well have been made at a CMC, without forcing the Town to file the Motion. Counsel reserved submission to claim Costs on the Motion.

DISPOSITION

26Pursuant to Rule 3.2 of the Rules, the Tribunal may abridge time for something that needed to be done. In this instance, the Town's motion was requested on an urgent basis as the hearing date of April 13, 2026 was fast approaching. The Tribunal will abridge time for the filing and service of the motion, particularly when there was no affidavit in opposition to the motion's requested reliefs.

27Overall, as the Motion was uncontested and unopposed, the Tribunal grants the reliefs requested. The scheduled April 13 to April 29, 2026 hearing dates are vacated.

28The Town's counsel made a brief submission for nominal costs of $1,000.00, which the Appellant's counsel opposed. The Tribunal ruled that the Town may bring a written motion for costs under the Rules, if it deems fit.

29The Tribunal considered Rule 17 of the Tribunal's Rules in granting the Motion.

FINDINGS

30The Tribunal finds that the Town's Motion is reasonable in the circumstances.

31The Motion is uncontested and unopposed; hence the requested reliefs are undisputed.

32The originally scheduled hearing dates were fixed without consultation with counsel.

33The Town's counsel was thus double booked on those dates as a previous matter had been fixed that required his attendance.

34Counsel (Mr. Biggart, handling the matter) for the Town is to undergo hand surgery on April 6, 2026, which is one week before the April 13, 2026 hearing commencement date. Thus, there will be little recovery time for counsel and will be burdensome to counsel.

35Further, this matter has been handled by this counsel all this time, and as such there is no other counsel in his firm to properly take over carriage of this matter. Also, counsel's partner will have another case, previously booked that he will be engaged in.

There is no contrary evidence filed by way of opposition affidavits to dispute any of the Town's varied grounds. The Tribunal finds that the granting of the requested reliefs is a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the proceeding.

36The Tribunal shall, pursuant to Rule 17.5b. of the Rules, grant the request and fix new dates for the re-hearing of this matter.

37The Tribunal directs the Parties to forward the Case Coordinator the revised Procedural Order by Friday, April 3, 2026.

HEARING

38The Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video at 10 a.m. from Monday, June 8, 2026 to Friday, June 12, 2026 (five days).

39Parties, Participants, and Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013

Access code: 660-145-013

40Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

41Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 660-145-013.

42Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal's Case Coordinator.

43As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal's Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

CONCLUSION

44The Tribunal will allow the Motion for adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.

ORDER

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the motion for adjournment ("Motion") is granted and that:

1. Time is abridged for filing and serving of the Motion;
2. The scheduled April 13 to April 29, 2026 hearing dates are vacated;
3. New hearing dates are scheduled as set out above; and
4. The revised Procedural Order to be filed by Friday, April 3, 2026.

"T.F. Ng"

T.F. NG

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.