Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. v. Hamilton (City), 2026 CanLII 4984

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 19, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000735, OLT-22-003154

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(1) of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27

Appellant: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. Description: Determination of the development charges Reference Number: SPA-23-070, Permit No. 21-137706 01 R3 Property Address: 505, 509, 513, and 517 Highland Road West Municipality/UT: City of Hamilton OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000735 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000735 OLT Case Name: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. v. Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 69(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. Description: Protest of Fee for site plan application Property Address: 505, 509, 513 and 517 Highland Road West Municipality/UT: City of Hamilton OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003154 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003154 OLT Case Name: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd v. Hamilton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27

Appellant: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. Description: Development Charges By-law No. 11-174 Reference Number: DC BL 11-174 Property Address: 505, 509, 513 and 517 Highland Road West, Stoney Creek Municipality/UT: City of Hamilton OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000511 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003154 OLT Case Name: Losani Homes (1998) Ltd v. Hamilton (City)

Heard: January 14, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Losani Homes (1998) Ltd. (“Appellant”)	Raj Kehar
City of Hamilton (“City”)	Andrew Biggart

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST ON JANUARY 14, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above-noted matter and follow-up from the previous CMC for OLT-22-003154 and OLT-23-000511 (“Related Appeals”) in respect of properties municipally known as 505, 509, 513 and 517 Highland Road West, Stoney Creek (“Subject Lands”).

2The Related Appeals were as follows:

• An appeal of City Council’s decision regarding the City’s Development Charges By-law(s), pursuant to s. 22(1) of the Development Charges Act (“DCA”) (OLT Case No. OLT-23-000511); and
• A payment under protest of fees appeal, pursuant to s. 69(3) of the Planning Act (OLT Case No. OLT-22-003154).

3The Related Appeals were ordered to be heard together, in keeping with Rule 16.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) “Matters Heard Together”. A previous Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) were approved and in effect and no further notice was required.

4The following provides a synopsis of key elements pertinent to the current appeal:

• On June 10, 2019, the Appellant submitted an application for Site Plan Approval ("Old SPA") to facilitate a proposed development on the Subject Lands. The City issued a building permit (“Permit No. 21-137706 00 R3”) on April 26, 2022 to permit two eight-storey apartment buildings containing 242 units (124 two-bedroom units and 118 one-bedroom units) and a one-storey amenity building. At the time the Old SPA was submitted, the City's Development Charges By-law No. 19-142 ("2019 DCBL") was in effect.
• On September 5, 2023, the Appellant submitted an application for Site Plan Approval ("New SPA") to facilitate a modified development on the Subject Lands. The development was amended to increase the total unit count to 272 units and changed the breakdown in unit type (90 two-bedroom units and 182 one-bedroom units). The New SPA was deemed complete on November 10, 2023. A building permit (“Permit No. 21-137706 01 R3”) for the modified development was issued on May 9, 2025.
• The City initially calculated that the development charges (“DCs”) owing following the issuance of Permit No. 21-137706 01 R3 were $870,794.40.
• On May 27, 2025, the Appellant filed a Complaint with the City pursuant to s. 20 of the DCA in respect of the DCs payable for the development at the Subject Lands. The basis of the complaint was as follows:
  • The City incorrectly determined the amount of the DCs owing;
  • The City incorrectly determined, and did not correctly apply, a credit that is available to be used against the DCs levied; and
  • There was an error in the application of the development charges by-law as the City used the wrong development charges by-law in calculating the DCs owing for the Proposed Development, and it incorrectly applied how the development charges by-law applies credits.
• On July 23, 2025 the Complaint was heard by the Audit, Finance and Administration Committee ("Committee") of the City. The disposition of the Complaint was an adjustment to the DCs owing following the issuance of Permit No. 21-137706 01 R3 in the amount of $563,275.98. The Committee otherwise dismissed the Complaint.

5There are two Parties of record in this matter. No additional requests for Party status were made at this CMC. There were no requests for Participant status.

6The purpose of this CMC was to consider adjudicating all three matters together, in accordance with Rule 16.3 of the Rules, and set a date for the Merit Hearing.

7The Parties anticipated the length of the Merit Hearing, based on the issues to be addressed and anticipated number of fact and expert witnesses, to be five days.

8These matters are appealed under very different Provincial legislation. Counsel for both Parties submitted that all three matters are best adjudicated in keeping with Rule 16.3 of the Rules. The Tribunal agrees.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

9Mr. Biggart, Counsel for the City, advised the Tribunal that a revised draft PO and IL, on consent, will be circulated and forwarded to the Case Coordinator post-CMC, for the consideration of the Tribunal. Mr. Biggart, on behalf of the Parties, advised that the revised draft PO will be submitted by Friday, January 30, 2026.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

10The Parties are engaged in discussions and information exchanges. The Parties will continue their current process and are optimistic of working towards a settlement but are in agreement that a Merit Hearing should be set. The Tribunal agrees.

11The Parties are aware that Tribunal-led mediation is available to the Parties, should the need arise.

NEXT STEPS

12The Tribunal directs the Parties to submit a revised draft PO, on consent, by Friday, January 30, 2026. The Tribunal will review the draft PO, and if approved, it will govern the proceedings of the Merit Hearing.

13The Tribunal directs that the Parties prepare a clear Hearing Plan for the benefit of the Member presiding at the Merit Hearing. This Hearing Plan will describe how the Merit Hearing will proceed, what, if any, evidence is relative to both matters and when each distinct matter is to be heard. The report following the meeting of the expert witnesses should clearly describe what facts are and are not in dispute at the Merit Hearing.

14The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed which might assist in the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of this matter. The Parties indicated there were none.

15The Tribunal thanked all Counsel for their assistance on the matter.

16A Merit Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, September 21, 2026, at 10 a.m. to Friday, September 25, 2026, inclusive.

17Parties 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/909787981

Access Code: 909-787-981

18Parties 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

19Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (toll-free) +1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 909-787-981.

20Individuals 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.

ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS OLT Case Nos. OLT-22-003154, OLT-23-000511, and OLT-25-000735 be heard together, in keeping with Rule 16.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the directions contained above in this Decision.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

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.