COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DATE: 20260309 DOCKET: COA-25-CV-0932
Lauwers, Huscroft and Gomery JJ.A.
BETWEEN
RCG Islington 401 Limited Partnership Applicant (Appellant)
and
The City of Toronto Respondent (Respondent)
Christopher Stanek, Peter Gross and Graham Reeder, for the appellant
Cara Davies, for the respondent
Heard: February 25, 2026
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Jennifer Penman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 19, 2025.
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] RCG Islington 401 Limited Partnership was redeveloping an old warehouse into a retail centre in west Toronto. RCG was granted a demolition permit on January 11, 2018, and then submitted a building permit application on May 19, 2021.
[2] The City of Toronto imposed a development charge of $6.7 million on RCG pursuant to s. 415-5 of City of Toronto, By-law 515-2018, (27 April 2018). The City determined that RCG was not entitled to the redevelopment charge reduction set out in s. 415-7 of the by-law, which states that the development charge will be reduced where the developer submits a building permit application within 36 months of receiving a demolition permit.
[3] Section 415-7(C) of the by-law provides, in part:
(2) Despite any other provision of this article and subject to Subsections C(3) and (4), where, as a result of the redevelopment of land, a demolition permit has been issued within the thirty-six month period immediately prior to the date of submission of a complete building permit application with respect to the whole or a part of a building or structure existing on the same land, or a building or structure is to be converted from one principal use to another principal use on the same land, the development charges otherwise payable with respect to such building permit application shall be reduced as follows:
(a) In the case of a non-residential building or structure, or the non-residential uses in a mixed-use building or structure, which is being redeveloped for non-residential purposes:
[1] In the case of demolition, no development charge will be imposed to the extent that the existing non-residential gross floor area to be demolished and which is located on the ground floor would have been, if newly constructed, subject to the payment of development charges at the time of building permit issuance for the new building or structure and is replaced by the new non-residential gross floor area;
[4] The City took the position that RCG was not eligible for the reduction because it submitted its building permit application 40 months after the demolition permit, exceeding the 36-month time period set out in the by-law.
[5] RCG applied for a declaration that Limitation Periods, O. Reg. 73/20 extended the 36-month period set out in the by-law and that RCG was entitled to the reduction of the development charge.
[6] Regulation 73/20 was passed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and extended certain time periods for a period of 182 days between March 16, 2020, and September 13, 2020. The relevant text of the regulation is as follows:
Any provision of any statute, regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any limitation period shall be suspended, and the suspension shall be retroactive to Monday, March 16, 2020.
Any provision of any statute, regulation, rule, by-law or order of the Government of Ontario establishing any period of time within which any step must be taken in any proceeding in Ontario, including any intended proceeding, shall, subject to the discretion of the court, tribunal or other decision-maker responsible for the proceeding, be suspended for the duration of the emergency, and the suspension shall be retroactive to Monday, March 16, 2020.
[7] The application judge dismissed the application on the basis that the time period stipulated by the City's by-law was not a limitation period within the meaning of s. 1 of Regulation 73/20. RCG did not argue, either before the application judge or on appeal, that the deadline to file the building permit application was suspended under s. 2 of the regulation.
[8] The application judge did not err in finding that the time period in this case was not a limitation period and was not the subject of s. 1 of Regulation 73/20.
[9] The appeal is dismissed with costs payable to the respondent in the amount of $26,000 all-inclusive.
"P. Lauwers J.A."
"Grant Huscroft J.A."
"S. Gomery J.A."