Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 05, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-26-000111
OLT-26-000197
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended:
Appellant: Lucas O’Neill
Subject: Complaint against a Development Charge imposed under the authority of Development Charges By-law No. 2022-31
Description: Complaint against a Development Charge imposed by the Region
Reference Number: EA-001885
Property Address: 329 Park Avenue
Municipality/UT: York/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000111
OLT File No.: OLT-26-000111
OLT Case Name: O’Neill v. York Region
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended:
Appellant: Lucas O’Neill
Subject: Complaint against a Development Charge imposed under the authority of Development Charges By-law No. 2022-34
Description: Complaint against a Development Charge imposed by the Town
Reference Number: DC-1
Property Address: 329 Park Avenue
Municipality/UT: Newmarket/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-26-000197
OLT File No.: OLT-26-000197
OLT Case Name: O’Neill v. Newmarket (Town)
Heard: May 28, 2026 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Lucas O’Neill (“Appellant”)
Self-represented*
Region of York (“Region”)
Town of Newmarket (“Town”)
Mercedes Mueller
Barbara Montgomery
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST ON MAY 28, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision concerns the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) respecting appeals (“Appeals”) by the Appellant concerning the imposition of development charges imposed by the Region and Town as a result of a provisional consent respecting a property municipally known as 329 Park Avenue (“Subject Lands”).
2The purpose of this CMC was to:
Inform the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) of an upcoming assessment for Tribunal-led mediation.
Confirm Party status for the Region in the Town proceeding and to confirm Party status for the Town in the Region proceeding.
Consider the proceedings to be heard together.
Establish a framework to develop a Procedural Order (“PO”) and scoped Issues List (“IL”).
To set a date for the Merit Hearing and consider it be conducted in writing. The Parties proposed that one day for a hearing would be sufficient.
3The Tribunal recognized that the Appellant, as a self-represented Party, might not be familiar with the procedures of the Tribunal.
4The Tribunal encouraged the Appellant to be aware of the Rules, the duties and obligations of a Party and to consult or seek legal counsel.
BACKGROUND
5The Appellant had applied for and was granted provisional consent to create two residential parcels, for the purpose of recognizing an existing semi-detached residential dwelling.
6Under the Region Development Charges By-law No. 2022-31, the Appellant was assessed an amount of $93,280 in development charges resulting from the provisional consent. A complaint was filed by the Appellant on October 23, 2025 and the complaint was dismissed by Regional Council on December 11, 2025.
7Under The Town Development Charges By-law No. 2022-34, the Appellant was assessed an amount of $44,203 in development charges resulting from the provisional consent. A complaint was filed by the Appellant on November 26, 2025 and the complaint was dismissed by Town Council on January 19, 2026.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
8All Parties aware of Tribunal-led mediation. The Parties have an upcoming Mediation Assessment scheduled.
REQUESTS FOR STATUS
9The Town requested Party Status for Case No OLT-26-000197 (“Region Appeal”) and the Region requested Party Status for Case No. OLT-26-000111 (“Town Appeal”).
10The requests for Party Status by the Region and Town cited the similarity of the appeals, efficiency and cost savings for the preparation of the hearing. The Appellant stated no objection to the requests.
11The Tribunal grants Party status to the Region and Town as requested to assist the Tribunal in resolving the issues raised in the appeal in a fair, just, and expeditious manner.
HEARING THE MATTERS TOGETHER
12The Parties confirmed their willingness to hear both matters together. Rule 16.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) states that:
16.3 Effect of Hearing Matters Together When two or more proceedings are heard together, or one after the other, but not consolidated,
a. statutory requirements for each proceeding apply only to that particular proceeding and not to the others;
b. parties to the hearing are parties to their individual proceedings only and not parties to the other proceedings; and
c. unless otherwise ordered by the Tribunal, evidence in the hearing is evidence in each proceeding to which it could apply.
13The Tribunal finds the hearing together of OLT Case File Nos. OLT-26-000111 and OLT-26-000197 acceptable.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
14Ms. Montgomery, Counsel for Town, and on consent of the other Parties, agreed to coordinate the development of the draft PO and scoped IL.
15Ms. Montgomery advised the Tribunal that the draft PO and IL will be circulated and forwarded to the Case Coordinator post-CMC for the consideration of the Tribunal.
NEXT STEPS
16The Tribunal directed the Appellant to submit a draft PO on behalf of the Parties by Friday, July 3, 2026. The Tribunal will review the draft PO and, if approved, it will govern the proceedings of the Hearing.
17The Tribunal considered the request of the Region and Town to consider a written hearing under Rule 21 of the Rules which states:
RULE 21
WRITTEN HEARINGS
21.1 Power to Hold Hearing Events by Written Submissions The Tribunal may conduct the whole or any part of a hearing event in writing, unless a party satisfies the Tribunal that there is good reason for not doing so. Notice of a written hearing will be sent only to the known parties and participants.
21.2 How to Object A party who objects to a written hearing shall file and provide a copy of a written objection to the other parties, setting out details of its claim that a written hearing will result in significant prejudice and shall do so within the specified time period.
21.3Procedure for Exchange of Documents in Written Hearings If no notice of objection is received,
a. the moving party shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties copies of its affidavit(s) and submissions within 30-day safter the date of the Tribunal’s notice of the written hearing ,except for settlement sunder Rule 12. The submissions shall include the reasons for the proceeding, the order requested, any law or authorities relied on and an analysis as to how the law and authorities inform the issues in dispute. The affidavit shall include the facts relied on and the evidence supporting the facts;
b. the other parties wishing to respond to the submissions shall do so by copy to all parties and the Tribunal within 20 days of the date that the applicant’s affidavit and submissions were served. The responding submissions shall include an affidavit of the facts and the evidence relied upon and state if that party has any submissions or evidence on any of the issues raised, if this is the case, and set out the order requested, any law or authorities relied on and an analysis as to how the law and authorities inform the issues in dispute; and
c. the moving party may reply to the other parties’ responses, with a copy to the Tribunal, within 10 days after the date for service of the responses, and the reply shall be limited to any new evidence or issues in the responses that the moving party could not have addressed at the outset of their case.
21.4 Requirement that Evidence be Sworn or Affirmed Evidence in a written hearing must be by affidavit, and any documents filed shall be attached to an affidavit of person having personal knowledge of the document. The Tribunal may permit evidence to be filed in a different form or in electronic form as approved by the Tribunal upon request of a party.
18The Appellant’s preference was not to have a written hearing. The Tribunal was not persuaded to deviate from the request of the Region and the Town given Rules 21.1 and 21.2.
19Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that a Merit Hearing is scheduled to proceed, in writing, on Monday, August, 31, 2026.
ORDER
20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that OLT Case Nos. OLT-26-000111 and OLT-26-000197 be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the directions contained 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.