Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 24, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000928

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: Rymal Road Apartments Hamilton Ltd. Appellant: 1826210 Ontario Inc. and 2624352 Ontario Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To implement the City-wide Mid Rise Residential Zones to Zoning By-law No. 05-200 and apply the zones along arterial roads in urban areas. Reference Number: CI-25-C; and BL 25-189 Property Address: 400 Rymal Rd W Municipality/UT: Hamilton OLT Case No: OLT-25-000928 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000928 OLT Case Name: Rymal Road Apartments Hamilton Ltd. et al. v. Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(25) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Request by: City of Hamilton Motion for: Dismissal Without a Hearing Heard: February 25, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Rymal Road Apartments Hamilton Ltd. Matthew Helfand

1826210 Ontario Inc. and 2624352 Ontario Inc. Jessica De Marinis Jennifer Meader (in absentia)

City of Hamilton Patrick MacDonald

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for appeals brought under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act (“PA”) regarding Zoning By-law 25-189 (“ZBL”) which was passed by the Council of the City of Hamilton (“City”) to implement the City-wide Mid Rise Residential Zones and apply the zones along arterial roads in urban areas.

2Two appeals of the ZBL were filed by:

a. Rymal Road Apartments Hamilton Ltd. (“Rymal Road”), and

b. 1826210 Ontario Inc. and 2624352 Ontario Inc. (together “182”).

3At the outset of the CMC, the Tribunal confirmed, on consent of all Parties present, that a Verbatim Reporter (retained by Rymal Road) had been granted prior approval to record the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 22.8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).

NOTICE

4The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service, sworn by Lisa Kelsey, and marked it as Exhibit 1. Upon review, and with no concerns raised at the CMC, the Tribunal determined that proper notice of this CMC had been provided and that no further notice was required.

UPDATE

5A Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) the Rymal Road appeal was filed by the City in accordance with Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules. The Motion was scheduled to be heard at this CMC.

6The Tribunal received an update from the Parties. Counsel for 182, Ms. De Marinis, said that her client had been in discussions with the City and was interested in pursuing Tribunal-led mediation. Based on the issues identified by 182, Ms. De Marinis anticipated that three hearing days would be required for their part of the hearing of the Merits (“Hearing”) and requested that these be set in October 2026, subject to availability on the Tribunal’s calendar.

7The Tribunal heard from Rymal Road that pending the Tribunal’s decision on the Motion, it would require five hearing days and that October 2026 would be suitable for it as well. Counsel for Rymal Road, Mr. Helfand, suggested that the appeals should be heard one after the other, as there are some common issues regarding the City’s ZBL.

8Counsel for the City, Mr. MacDonald suggested that the appeals did not need to be heard together but agreed that there might be some efficiencies in the delivery of the evidence if the matters were heard together. He concurred with the scheduling of hearing days in October 2026, subject to availability on the Tribunal’s calendar.

9The Tribunal directed that any Parties interested in mediation should contact the Case Coordinator to begin an intake assessment and proceeded to hear the Motion.

MOTION HEARING

10The City seeks an Order of the Tribunal dismissing the Rymal Road Appeal without a full hearing pursuant to s. 19(1)(d) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act (“OLTA”) and sections 4.6.(b) and (c) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and such further and other relief as the Tribunal may permit.

11The materials before the Tribunal on the Motion to include the following Exhibits:

Exhibit 2a: City’s Motion Record;

Exhibit 2b: City’s Book of Authorities;

Exhibit 3a: Rymal Road’s Responding Motion Record;

Exhibit 4a: City’s Reply Motion Record;

Exhibit 4b: City’s Revised Book of Authorities.

12The Tribunal heard oral submissions from Counsel. In addition, the Tribunal received authorities from Counsel reflecting decisions made by the Tribunal, its predecessors and the Courts and had the benefit of written affidavit evidence from two land use planning experts.

Legislative Framework

13Section 34(19) of the PA outlines those who may appeal a decision of council to pass a zoning by-law and states:

Appeal to Tribunal

(19) Not later than 20 days after the day that the giving of notice as required by subsection (18) is completed, any of the following may appeal to the Tribunal by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the fee charged by the Tribunal:

1. The applicant.

2. A specified person who, before the by-law was passed, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

2.1 A public body that, before the by-law was passed, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

2.2 The registered owner of any land to which the by-law would apply, if, before the by-law was passed, the owner made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

3. The Minister. 2006, c. 23, s. 15 (10); 2017, c. 23, Sched. 3, s. 10 (4); 2019, c. 9, Sched. 12, s. 6 (4); 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, s. 80 (1); 2024, c. 16, Sched. 12, s. 5 (7).

14The OLTA and SPPA establish criteria for the consideration of dismissing appeals without a full hearing. The relevant sections are set out below for ease of reference.

15Section 19(1)(d) of the OLTA states:

Dismissal without a hearing 19 (1) Subject to subsection (4), the Tribunal may, on the motion of any party or on its own initiative, dismiss a proceeding without a hearing,

(d) in any circumstance listed in subsection 4.6 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act;

16Sections 4.6(1)(b) and (c) of the SPPA state:

Dismissal of proceeding without hearing

4.6 (1) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), a tribunal may dismiss a proceeding without a hearing if,

(b) the proceeding relates to matters that are outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal; or (c) some aspect of the statutory requirements for bringing the proceeding has not been met.

City Motion to Dismiss

17The City brings this Motion on the grounds that Rymal Road has no right of appeal to the Tribunal in this matter, pursuant to s. 34(19)2.2 of the PA. The City submits that Rymal Road is not a specified person nor a public body as defined by the PA, it is not the applicant (as the ZBL was initiated by the City), and it is not the Minister. Rymal Road’s only grounds of appeal would be under s. 34(19)2.2 of the PA as:

2.2 The registered owner of any land to which the by-law would apply, if, before the by-law was passed, the owner made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

18It is not disputed that Rymal Road is the registered owner of 400 Rymal Road West (“Subject Lands”), nor that Rymal Road made oral or written submissions to Council. However, the City submits that the Subject Lands were not included in the ZBL, as their zoning (which is Low Density Multiple Dwellings DE/S-1301 under Zoning By-law No. 6593 (“ZBL-6593”)) remains unchanged. The City submits that since the Subject Lands were not modified by the ZBL, the ZBL does not apply to the Subject Lands, and therefore there is no right of appeal.

19As stated by the City:

There is no right of appeal under section 34(19)2.2 where a registered owner desires the zoning by-law in question to apply to their lands. An owner of lands is entitled to make its own application for a zoning by-law amendment, and is entitled to appeal a decision or non-decision on that application to the Tribunal. An owner of lands may appeal a City-initiated zoning by-law that applies to its lands, but may not appeal on the basis that it was not included. (Exhibit 2a, page 7, paragraph 13)

20The City submits that Rymal Road has not met the statutory requirements, has no right to appeal under the PA and that the Tribunal “has no jurisdiction to create an appeal right where none exists by statute.” Therefore, the City submits that the Rymal Road appeal must be dismissed without a hearing.

21The City relied on the Tribunal Decision in Hennessey et al. V Durham (Region), 2025 CarswellOnt 9010 (OLT) (“Hennessey”) which involved a similar Motion to Dismiss of an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”). In Hennessey, the Appellants were the registered owners and made oral and written submissions asking for their properties to be included in the OPA; however, the Panel of the Tribunal, differently-constituted, found that since their properties were not redesignated or otherwise affected by the OPA in question, the Appellants had no appeal rights and their appeals were dismissed.

22In Hennessey, the Tribunal found that:

… the desire to redesignate lands that were part of a broader study area for OPA 126 is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish standing under the Act. In order to appeal an adopted amendment, the affected lands must be legally subject to the amendment. The fact that the Subject Properties were within the study boundary does not confer standing, as the amendment was adopted without including those lands. (Exhibit 2b, page 13, paragraph 25)

Rymal Road Response to Motion

23Rymal Road takes the position that its appeal is valid as the Subject Lands are shown on Schedule A59 of the ZBL, Rymal Road is the registered owner of the Subject Lands, and Rymal Road made written submissions to Council before the ZBL was passed.

24Schedule A59 is shown immediately below as it appears in the ZBL. The second version shows the Subject Lands outlined in red (in the bottom left corner).

(Exhibit 3a, page 207)

(Exhibit 2a, page 378)

25Rymal Road highlighted two issues to be determined in this Motion:

The first is a question of statutory interpretation: what is the meaning of the words “any land to which the by-law would apply” in section 34(19)2.2 of the Planning Act ...

The second is a factual question of whether Zoning By-law 25-189 applies to the Property [Subject Lands]. (Exhibit 3a, page 8, paragraphs 23-24).

26Rymal Road put forward that the City’s position that the ZBL does not apply to the Subject Lands because the by-law did not change the applicable zone is incorrect, as “it is based on an incorrect interpretation of section 34(19)2.2 of the Planning Act.”

27Rymal Road argued that the ZBL applies to “… every parcel of land that is included in the schedules – it is a City-wide by-law - including land for which the by-law maintains the existing zoning classification.” The application of the ZBL in the case of the Subject Lands means that the existing zone is maintained instead of changed.

28Rymal Road put forward that the City is trying to “… limit the appeals of exactly the owners the statute most clearly intended to capture – i.e. owners whose lands should have been rezoned under a City-wide reform, but were not, despite participating in the public process.”

29Rymal Road highlighted that s. 34(19)2.2. of the Act was introduced in Bill 185 – Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024 (“Bill 185”). Bill 185 amended the PA “… to limit the rights of third parties to appeal Zoning By-law Amendments.” Rymal Road explained that subsection 2.2 was not included in the original version of the bill but was included after consultation and committee.

Statutory Interpretation

30Rymal Road relied on La Presse inc. v Quebec, 2023 SCC 22 (“La Presse”) to outline the modern approach to statutory interpretation which requires one to consider text, context, and purpose. That Decision cites E.A. Driedger who states “… the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”.

31Regarding the text, Rymal Road highlighted the Legislature’s use of “any land” and argued this “… captures all land that falls within the ambit of a zoning by-law, not just land that receives a new zoning category or is modified by the by-law. Had the Legislature intended to limit appeals only to land that is rezoned, it would have used narrower language.”

32Rymal Road also highlighted the use of “would apply” and argued that the Legislature did not specify that the by-law “applies” or “has been applied”. Rymal Road argued that the language used does “… not ask whether a zoning change occurred; it asks whether the by-law purports to govern that land as part of its overall scheme. This includes both zone changes and deliberate decisions to maintain an existing zone.”

33Regarding the context, Rymal Road argued that the “… contextual lens confirms the textual reading.” Section 34(19)2.2 is part of the language that identifies who can appeal a zoning by-law. Rymal Road argued that this section “… has nothing to do with the planning merits of whether an appeal has merit, or whether particular zoning change should occur.” Further by “… placing “would apply” in a standing provision, the Legislature ensured that the threshold question can be answered without engaging in — or prejudging — the substantive zoning dispute.”

34Rymal Road argues that the City’s interpretation that “applies” only refers to a change in zoning of the land, is basically asking the Tribunal “… to confirm the correctness of the zoning outcome before determining whether the owner has standing to challenge that outcome.”

35Regarding the purpose, it was argued that the amendments brought in through Bill 185 were specifically meant “… to limit so called “third-party appeals” which delayed new housing starts.” Rymal Road cited an excerpt taken from Hansard, in which the Parliamentary Assistant to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”) describes Bill 185 and says that the proposed changes:

… would streamline certain third-party appeals to the Ontario Land Tribunal … approximately 67,000 housing units were subject to third-party appeals of official plans and rezoning between 2021 and 2023. Our proposed change could mean getting shovels in the ground a full year and a half earlier, which could then allow more families to move into new housing faster. (Exhibit 3a, page 13, paragraph 46)

36Rymal Road argued that the City’s narrow interpretation of “would apply” would “… deny appeal rights to owners who actively participated in the planning process but whose lands were omitted, excluded, or left unchanged in a City-wide zoning initiative.” Rymal Road argued that Bill 185 “… narrowed the class of persons entitled to appeal a zoning by-law, but it deliberately preserved appeal rights for landowners who participated in the public process and whose lands fall within the ambit of the by-law.”

37It was Rymal Road’s position that the City’s interpretation would lead to an absurd result. and that as stated in Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities (SCC, 2025) (“Telus”):

… consequences of a particular interpretation are a component of the modern approach to statutory interpretation. Consequences that are consistent with the purpose and scheme of the legislation are presumed to have been intended. Conversely, consequences that are absurd or otherwise unacceptable are presumed not to have been intended.” (Exhibit 3a, page 15, paragraph 53)

38Rymal Road argued that the granting of the City’s Motion would lead to an outcome that could not have been intended by the legislature. Rymal Road wants to be added to the R4 zone of the ZBL so that it can construct mid-rise buildings; the legislature wants more homes built.

39Rymal Road also argued that the City’s interpretation leads to a circular argument as individuals are encouraged to participate in the public process, in order to influence Council’s decision on a City-wide zoning exercise; however, if the City rejects the individual’s feedback and doesn’t change the zone, then that individual has no right to appeal. This means if the City agrees with the feedback and changes the zoning, that individual gains standing to appeal – but would have no desire to appeal that by-law as they had been given what they wanted.

40Finally, if the City’s interpretation is used, Rymal Road argued that the effect would be to narrow the Tribunal’s overall jurisdiction “… as it implies that landowners whose properties are included within the schedules of the by-law but are not subject to a specific modification have no right of appeal.” This in turn would confine the Tribunal’s ability to modify a City-wide by-law to only those “… select sites that were modified, to the exclusion of all other lands, which in turn limits the Tribunal’s ability to evaluate the City-wide by-law as a whole.”

41Rymal Road argued that the City’s interpretation:

… produces the very type of circular and self-defeating result that established principles of statutory interpretation prohibit. It creates a regime in which the right to appeal depends entirely on the City agreeing with the landowner in the first place, rendering appeal rights meaningless for those who actually need them. The Legislature cannot be presumed to have intended such an illusory mechanism. (Exhibit 3a, page 16, paragraph 64)

42Arguing that s. 34(19)2.2 of the PA does not require that zoning of the land be changed for the test of “application” to be established and that the ZBL applies to the Subject Property because it situates the Subject Property within the schedules and maintains the existing zone, Rymal Road proposed the following legal rule, that a zoning by-law “would apply” to land if:

… on its face or by necessary implication, the by-law purports to regulate that land under subsection 34(1) of the Planning Act, including by assigning a new zone, modifying the zoning permissions, or maintaining the existing zoning.

Does the ZBL apply to the Subject Lands

43It was Rymal Road’s position that the ZBL does apply to the Subject Lands.

44It is stated in s. 34(1) of the PA that zoning by-laws may be passed by the councils of local municipalities “For prohibiting the use of land, for or except for such purposes as may be set out in the by-law within the municipality or within any defined area or areas or abutting on any defined highway or part of a highway” (emphasis added by Rymal Road).

45Rymal Road specified that the ZBL is not an area-specific or site-specific instrument, as it provides a comprehensive mid-rise zoning framework across the City. The ZBL (i.e. Zoning By-law 25-189) is a “… City-wide amendment to the City-wide parent zoning By-law 05-200.”

46Rymal Road highlighted that the Staff Report describes the ZBL as “City-wide”, and that the zoning exercise was applied City-wide.

47Rymal Road said that the Subject Lands are found on Schedule A-59 of the ZBL, which states that it “forms part” of the By-law. Rymal Road submitted that

Inclusion on a mapping schedule is the mechanism through which a zoning by-law identifies the lands to which it applies ... Land that is mapped is land that the by-law purports to regulate. Mapping is the legal expression of the by-law’s geographic reach and is sufficient to establish that the by-law “would apply” to the land within the meaning of s. 34(19)2.2. (Exhibit 3a, page 17, paragraphs 72-73)

48Rymal Road argued that in terms of the Subject Lands, the ZBL “… determines its zoning status by retaining the existing zone rather than assigning the new R4 Mid-Rise Residential Zone sought through the public process.”

49Rymal Road further argued that:

Maintaining an existing zone is no less an exercise of zoning authority than changing it. A zoning by-law “applies” to land whenever it legislates that land’s zoning status — whether by amendment or by confirmation — provided that the land is included in an operative schedule … Maintaining the existing zoning through a City-wide amending by-law is itself a legislative determination about the current and future zoning regime for that land. It reflects a deliberate choice by the City within the context of a comprehensive zoning update that applies to the Property ... The By-law’s application to the Property – through its appearance in the schedules – is not incidental. It is explicit and reflects the City’s policy choice – a choice which should be tested on appeal. (Exhibit 3a, page 18, paragraphs 75-77)

50RR concluded that as the Subject Property “… is mapped, situated within the City-wide zoning framework, and governed by the By-law’s legislative choice to maintain its zoning status, the statutory threshold of “application of the by-law” is met.”

City Reply

51The City suggested that Rymal Road’s claim that the ZBL applies since the Subject Lands are shown on Schedule A59 “… would create a clear absurdity.”

52As indicated by City Planner Mallory Smith in her reply Affidavit, it is a standard practice for the City to attach maps to its zoning by-laws which show:

not only the property intended to be rezoned, but the surrounding properties … [in order] to show the boundaries of the area being rezoned and the local context. This mapping is accompanied by a legend showing the shaded areas that are actually being changed by the zoning by-law in question. (Exhibit 4a, page 6, paragraph 4)

53On Schedule A59, only those properties changed by the ZBL are indicated by shading, as shown on the map legend.

54Regarding statutory interpretation, the City relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., Re, 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), 1998 Carswell Ont 1, 1 SCR 27 (1998) (“Rizzo”) to highlight that “the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences.”

55The City also relied on a Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) (which is a predecessor to this Tribunal), CSH (Montgomery Village) Inc. v. Orangeville (Town), 2018 CarswellOnt 3804 (OMB) (“CSH”) which cites Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corp. 626 v. Bloor/Avenue Road Investment Inc., 2009 CarswellOnt 1556 (Ont. S.C.J.). which states “… when there are two answers to a problem, one which is complicated and complex and another which is simple and direct, the preferable choice is usually the latter”.

56The City submits that its approach is simple and direct, “… the ZBL does not apply to the Subject Lands because they are not a subject of the zoning by-law and are not modified by them.” Whereas Rymal Road’s approach is complicated and complex, “… it requires scanning the map or maps attached to a zoning by-law and identifying every single property shown to determine who has a right of appeal, even if those properties are in no way subject to any zoning changes in the by-law itself.”

57The City argues that Rymal Road’s interpretation “… would inadvertently create appeal rights for properties that were clearly not the subject of the zoning by-law in question simply by showing them on an attached reference map.” In the present case, it would mean “… the ZBL would not just apply to those properties specifically rezoned by it, as shown on the legend of each map attached to the ZBL, but it would apply to every single property shown on those maps.” The City rezoned approximately 3,000 properties through the ZBL, but to accept Rymal Road’s interpretation, it would mean that all properties across the City which are shown on the Schedules would have appeal rights (provided that they made submissions to Council). Given that Bill 185 was meant to reduce third party appeals this cannot have been the legislature’s intent.

58The City highlighted that ‘City-wide’ and ‘site-specific’ are descriptors used for convenience; however, s. 34(19)2.2 doesn’t actually distinguish between a private, site- specific application and a City-wide zoning exercise. So, while Rymal Road argued that its interpretation would only create appeal rights for City-initiated matters and would not result in third-party appeals on privately initiated applications, that is not reflected in the legislation.

59Ms. Smith provided an example of a recent site-specific Zoning By-law (ZBL 26-031) which the City approved for 2655 Fletcher Road.

(Exhibit 4a, page 24)

60If Rymal Road’s interpretation is used, then ZBL 26-031 applies to all the surrounding properties shown on the attached map and the registered owners of all of those other properties would have the right to appeal (assuming they met the other requirements of s. 34(19)2.2), not just the registered owner of 2655 Fletcher Road.

61The City submits that to accept Rymal Road’s interpretation, it:

… would mean that the standard mapping that the City uses in creating its zoning by-laws (and presumably that used by many other municipalities) would inadvertently create appeal rights for properties that were clearly not the subject of the zoning by-law in question simply by showing them on an attached reference map. (Exhibit 4a, page 3, paragraph 11)

62In the present case, this interpretation would mean that the ZBL applies to every property shown on the attached maps in Schedules A1-80, instead of just those properties that were specifically rezoned by the ZBL, as is shown by the legend for each attached map.

63The City submits that this would be absurd and would be counter to the SCC’s position on statutory interpretation in Rizzo. Rymal Road’s interpretation would “… expand appeal rights contrary to Bill 185’s goal of making those appeal rights more limited.”

64Therefore, the City submitted that the interpretation of “apply” as used in s. 34(19)2.2 must mean “… those properties that are specifically modified by zoning by-law in question.”

65Regarding the insertion of s. 34(19)2.2, following debate and committee consideration, the City submits that this was to provide the owner of a property who was putting forward a privately initiated zoning by-law amendment to appeal a decision of Council when it’s property’s zoning was changed by a City-initiated zoning by-law amendment. The owner of such a property would have “… recourse to the Tribunal against a City-initiated zoning by-law that would change the zoning permissions for its lands.”

66To use Rymal Road’s interpretation then:

…. the entire intent of restrictions on appeals created by Bill 185 would be upended. It would create the unintended result that any landowner shown on the zoning map attached to a privately-initiated zoning by-law application as passed by Council would have a right of appeal, provided they made oral or written submissions to Council. To allow these types of appeals … could not have been the legislature’s intent as it would completely defeat the purpose of Bill 185 to restrict appeal rights. (Exhibit 4a, page 5, paragraph 20)

67The City highlighted Rymal Road’s argument, at paragraph 31 of their Response, that the PA is intended to capture appeals by “… owners whose lands should have been rezoned under a City-wide reform, but were not, despite participating in the public process.” The City submits that this is speculative and subjective and that “… there is nothing in the legislation that provides such a right of appeal.”

68The City states that to:

… open up the definition of “apply” to be so broad as to include any property that could have been included is to expand it far beyond the clear intent of the wording of the statute, and would render the statute essentially futile in attempting to proscribe appeals to the Tribunal. (Exhibit 4a, page 6, paragraph 21)

69Regarding the use of maps, the City relied on CSH which states:

Zoning By-laws … operate with reference to zones on a series of maps under s. 34(7) of the Planning Act … When attempting to understand the zoning provisions applicable to a property, one finds the property on the relevant map, notes the zoning category affecting the property, and then turns to the text of the ZBL to understand the provisions applicable to that zone. (Exhibit 4b, page 69, paragraph 14)

70The City concludes that:

The maps attached to the ZBL cannot be interpreted in isolation, they must be interpreted in their context as part of the entire ZBL to ensure consistency. The maps are meant to be a reference to guide the reader in determining which properties the ZBL applies to. To accept the Appellant’s interpretation would require a narrow analysis of the maps attached to a by-law that ignores their overall utility to the ZBL as a whole. (Exhibit 4a, page 11, paragraph 26)

Analysis and Findings on the Motion

71The Tribunal must determine whether the appeal filed by Rymal Road meets the requirements as set out in s. 34(19) of the PA. There is no dispute that Rymal Road made submissions to Council and is the registered owner of the Subject Lands and therefore meets the requirements of s. 34(19)2.2. The issue is whether the Subject Lands are “any land to which the by-law would apply.”

72The Tribunal carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the Parties and the motion materials and makes the findings that follow.

What is the meaning of “any land to which the by-law would apply”

73The starting point is the modern approach to statutory interpretation. As the SCC stated at paragraph 21 in Rizzo:

Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

74Accordingly, the Tribunal must look at the text, context and purpose of s. 34(19)2.2 in the context of Bill 185. Text

75Rymal Road argued that “any land” captures “… all land that falls within the ambit of a zoning by-law, not just land that receives a new zoning category or is modified by the by-law.” In the Tribunal’s view, to fall within the ambit of a zoning by-law would require that the by-law governs or regulates the lands in question.

76The ZBL does not identify the zoning of the Subject Lands. To determine their zoning, one must refer to a different by-law, Zoning By-law No. 6593. The Tribunal therefore finds that the ordinary meaning of “any land” is inclusive as to type of property, but that does not resolve whether the by-law would apply to the Subject Lands.

77The words “would apply” also require examination. Merriam‑Webster defines “apply,” in an intransitive sense, as “to have relevance or a valid connection” (e.g. “This rule applies to freshmen only.”)

78In the Tribunal’s view, for a zoning by-law to have relevance or a valid connection to lands, it must tell the reader something about the zoning applicable to those lands. In this case, neither the text of the ZBL nor Schedule A59 indicates the zoning of the Subject Lands.

79Rymal Road argued that “would apply” does not ask whether a zoning change occurred, but whether the by-law purports to govern the land as part of its overall scheme, including decisions to maintain an existing zone. The Tribunal does not accept this submission. Schedule A59 does not state that the zoning of lands shown in white is maintained, nor does the legend identify the zoning of those lands. The schedule only shows what the lands are not zoned. The Tribunal finds that a zoning by-law applies to land only where it identifies the zoning applicable to that land.

80The Tribunal also notes that s. 34(19)2.2 does not use the words “could apply”, “should apply”, or “might apply.” The use of “would apply” reflects the fact that a zoning by-law is not in force while under appeal. In this context, “would apply” refers to lands the by-law is intended to regulate once in force. That intention is not evident with respect to the Subject Lands.

Context and Purpose

81Statutory interpretation requires decision-makers to consider context and legislative purpose. As discussed above, the Tribunal has found that for a zoning by-law to apply to land, there must be a clear regulatory connection showing what zoning governs that land.

82In the Tribunal’s view, the intent of Bill 185 was to accelerate housing construction and restrict third party appeal rights. This aligns with Rymal Road’s statement at paragraph 34 of their written response that the bill “…amended the Planning Act to limit the rights of third parties to appeal Zoning By-law Amendments.”

83The Tribunal considered the consequences of adopting Rymal Road’s broad interpretation of “would apply”.

84In Telus, the SCC confirmed that:

The consequences of a particular interpretation are a component of the modern approach to statutory interpretation. Consequences that are consistent with the purpose and scheme of the legislation are presumed to have been intended. Conversely, consequences that are absurd or otherwise unacceptable are presumed not to have been intended. (Exhibit 3a, page 15, paragraph 53)

85Rymal Road argued that denying its appeal rights in this case is inconceivable given Bill 185’s pro-housing objectives. The Tribunal does not agree. An appeal of the ZBL is not Rymal Road’s only recourse; Rymal Road may seek a privately initiated site‑specific zoning by-law amendment, which could be appealed to the Tribunal if necessary. Moreover, there is no guarantee that an appeal would result in the zoning sought or in a faster approval outcome.

86While Bill 185 seeks to facilitate housing construction, it also expressly restricts third-party appeals. These objectives must be balanced.

87Rymal Road argued that appeal rights should not depend on the City agreeing with the landowner and that the Legislature could not have intended to render “…appeal rights meaningless for those who actually need them ….” The Tribunal finds that the Legislature did not intend that, and has not done that. In this case, appeal rights are not solely dependent on the City’s agreement. There could be situations where the City did not agree with the landowner and the landowner did have a right of appeal. For example, if Rymal Road had been granted the R3 zoning, they would be in disagreement with the City, as they are seeking the R4 zone, and they would have the right to appeal. In this example, the zoning for the Subject Lands would be indicated by shading on Schedule A59. A further example is found in the case of 182 (the other Appellant in this file), whose lands were zoned R4, (despite their written submission requesting the R4A zone) and 182 has appealed to request that the ZBL be modified to apply the R4A zone.

88The Tribunal finds that adopting Rymal Road’s interpretation would expand third-party appeal rights, including appeals by landowners whose lands were not rezoned or modified, as in the case of 2655 Fletcher Road. This would undermine the intent of Bill 185 and produce consequences that are inconsistent with the legislative scheme.

89The Tribunal accepts the City’s submission regarding the function of zoning maps. As stated in CSH, maps are used by locating a property, identifying the zoning category affecting it, and then turning to the text for applicable provisions. Schedule A59 does not permit this exercise for the lands shown in white, including the Subject Lands.

90To find that the ZBL applies to every property depicted on a map regardless of whether zoning is assigned would ignore the overall utility of zoning schedules and lead to absurd results, and cannot have been the intent of the Legislature.

91The Tribunal also considered the Hansard statements referred to by Rymal Road. Regarding Bill 185, the former Minister of MMAH said “… the bill has taken a step in the right direction by limiting third-party appeals, while at the same time amendments were brought in that allow us to preserve the rights of landowners to appeal amendments that may be made that disadvantage them…” (emphasis added by Tribunal).

92The Tribunal finds that Rymal Road is not disadvantaged by the ZBL, as the zoning of the Subject Lands remains unchanged. The introduction of the ZBL does not put Rymal Road in a worse position (such as a more restrictive zone); the zoning for the Subject Lands remains the same as before the by-law was passed. The Subject Lands are zoned in ZBL-6593; the ZBL did not make any changes to ZBL-6593.

93Adopting Rymal Road’s broad interpretation may advance their goal to build Mid-Rise housing on the Subject Lands but could lead to an increase in appeals (third-party) that would slow the appeal process for all. This would be contrary to the Legislature’s intent to build more homes faster. The Tribunal notes that it does not have to accept Rymal Road’s broader interpretation simply because they seek to construct Mid-Rise housing; while an individual development proposal may result in more homes, it does not automatically follow that the purpose of Bill 185 would be supportive of that development proposal. Indeed, this would be a flawed approach to understanding the purpose of Bill 185.

94Limiting third-party appeals is one of several tools employed by the Legislature in recent years to address housing supply concerns. There have been many amendments to the PA in recent years, and they all generally relate to creating more housing in shorter timeframes. It cannot have been intended that every property shown on a schedule would have an appeal right (if the owner had made submissions to Council) merely because it appeared on a map.

95In Hennessey, the requirement in s. 17(36)1.2 of the PA regarding the qualification of an appellant for an appeal of an OPA uses almost identical language to s. 34(19)2.2 as illustrated below:

s. 17(36)1.2

s. 34(19)2.2

1.2 The registered owner of any land to which the plan would apply, if, before the plan was adopted, the owner made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

2.2 The registered owner of any land to which the by-law would apply, if, before the by-law was passed, the owner made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

96These sections of the PA were introduced through Bill 185. It is well established that Legislative change is made for a purpose and must be interpreted accordingly. The Tribunal finds that the purpose of these sections was to allow appeals where an owner’s lands were changed in a manner that disadvantages them through a City-initiated process. Statements made by the former Minister during the legislative debates, while not determinative of legislative intent, are consistent with and reinforce this interpretation, including the explanation in Hansard that the changes were “… to preserve the rights of landowners to appeal amendments that may be made that disadvantage them….”

97Rymal Road argued that the ZBL “… is a City-wide amendment to the City-wide parent zoning By-law 05-200. It is not an area-specific or site-specific instrument; it establishes a comprehensive mid-rise zoning framework across the City of Hamilton.” Rymal Road said that the ZBL is described as “City-wide” in the Staff Report and the zoning exercise was considered City-wide.

98The Tribunal rejects Rymal Road’s argument that the ZBL’s characterization as “City-wide” should lead to a right of appeal. As highlighted by the City, the terms ‘City-wide’ and ‘site-specific’ are descriptors used for convenience but are not found in the PA. If Rymal Road’s interpretation is accepted, then in a site-specific zoning by-law (such as the 2655 Fletcher Road example), any owners whose properties are shown on the attached map would have the right of appeal (if they made submissions to Council), creating appeal rights for properties that were not the subject of the zoning by-law in question. There doesn’t appear to be any context in either Bill 185 or the PA that seems to support a different interpretation for City-Wide zoning by-laws compared to Site-Specific zoning by-laws. The Tribunal concludes that this would expand third party appeal rights which is counter to the intent of Bill 185.

Does the ZBL apply to the Subject Lands?

99In the Tribunal’s view, for the ZBL to apply to the Subject Lands, the ZBL should identify what the zoning is for those lands. In this case, the ZBL does not do that in either the text of the by-law or in Schedule A59.

100The ZBL does not identify the zoning for every property shown in the attached schedules; it only identifies the zoning of those properties which are zoned Mid Rise Residential. The legend in the schedules depicts the three categories of Mid Rise Residential (i.e. R3, R4, and R4a) with different types of shading.

101On Schedule A59, the properties in white (including the Subject Lands) do not have a corresponding zone identified in the legend. To find the zoning for the Subject Lands, one must turn to a completely different by-law, ZBL-6593, which tells us that the Subject Lands are zoned Low Density Multiple Dwellings DE/S-1301. Schedule A59 only tells us that the Subject Lands are not zoned Mid-Rise.

102The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a valid connection between the ZBL and the Subject Lands as neither the text of the ZBL nor Schedule A59 tells us the zoning of the Subject Lands.

103Through the ZBL over 3,000 properties from across the City were rezoned and in the Tribunal’s view, the ZBL applies to those properties, whose zoning is modified and depicted by shading on the schedules. This does not include the Subject Lands.

104As stated by the City, it is not required to accept every request to be included in a City-initiated zoning by-law. This approach is supported by the Tribunal’s decision in Hennessey, which found that the desire to be included in an OPA was not sufficient to establish a right of appeal. In Hennessey, the amendment was adopted without including the lands in question. In this case, the Tribunal takes the same approach, Rymal Road’s desire to be included in the ZBL does not give them a right of appeal.

105As was previously mentioned, Rymal Road can bring forward a privately initiated zoning by-law amendment to request rezoning of the Subject Lands, and that zoning by-law amendment would be appealable to the Tribunal if the City refused that zoning by-law amendment or failed to render a decision. The Tribunal finds that this would be the recourse available to property owners who participated in the public process requesting a zone change, but whose properties were not modified by a City-initiated zoning by-law.

106Rymal Road maintained that “… Land that is mapped is land that the by-law purports to regulate. Mapping is the legal expression of the by-law’s geographic reach and is sufficient to establish that the by-law “would apply” to the land within the meaning of s. 34(19)2.2.”

107The Tribunal rejects Rymal Road’s submission that mapping establishes regulatory application. Mapping without zoning assignment does not demonstrate governance or regulation.

108The Tribunal finds that the Subject Lands are shown on Schedule A59 for context only. They are not zoned Mid-Rise, their zoning is not identified by the ZBL and the ZBL does not govern them.

109The Tribunal is not satisfied that the ZBL “would apply” to the Subject Lands within the meaning of s. 34(19)2.2. of the PA. Accordingly, the statutory requirements for an appeal are not met.

110The Tribunal has no authority to create an appeal right where none exists by statute. The Motion is allowed, and the appeal filed by Rymal Road is dismissed.

NEXT STEPS

111Given the Tribunal’s determination that the appeal by Rymal Road is dismissed, the Tribunal hereby schedules a three-day video hearing to begin at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, to consider the remaining appeal.

112Parties 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://meet.goto.com/680885805

Access code: 680-885-805

113Parties 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

114Persons 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: 680-885-805.

115Individuals 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.

116As 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.

117The Parties were directed to provide the draft Procedural Order, including Issues list to the Tribunal for consideration by Friday, May 1, 2026.

118The Parties are also directed to contact the Case Coordinator with carriage of this file to schedule a second CMC should one be required.

ORDER

119THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the motion to dismiss the appeal of Rymal Road Apartments Hamilton Ltd. is granted and that the appeal by Rymal Road Apartments Hamilton Ltd. is dismissed.

120The Tribunal Orders that a three-dayMerit hearing is set as outlined in paragraph [111] above.

121THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Parties are to provide the draft Procedural Order, including Issues list to the Tribunal for consideration by Friday, May 1, 2026.

122The Member is not seized and there will be no further notice.

“S. Bobka” S. BOBKA 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.