|
Homelessness - Housing Policy. Ajax (Town) v. Medallion Devels. (Bayly Square) A Ltd.
In (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a municipal appeal (brought with leave), this against "a decision of the Assessment Review Board (“ARB”), varying the classification applied by the respondent MPAC to the Medallion Respondents’ multi-unit rental residential properties".
Here the court considers (the case was remitted back down to the ARB) a statutory re-interpretation of a residential development tax incentive under the Assessment Act, turning on it's 'purpose' (that the incentive should only apply if it furthered the purpose of incentivizing residential development):[7] In its decision, the Board found that the provision “is clear and unambiguous”: the phrase “a building permit” means any building permit that is issued pursuant to which the rental residential development is constructed. Thus, the triggering event for determination of the applicability of the realty tax incentive is the date of the last building permit issued.
[8] The effect of this finding is that projects that were well underway at the time the scheme was enacted will be entitled to the benefit of the incentive, even though no further incentive would be required or effective, and (as in the situation in this case), even where the development has already received substantial tax incentives and there is a contractual obligation to complete the project.
....
[11] The Board provided reasons why it considered its interpretation to be correct. The Board did not, however, apply the test to be followed for statutory interpretation (see Yonge Street Hotels Ltd. v. Municipal Property Assessment Corp., Region No. 9, 2005 CanLII 14438 (ON CA)). This was an error in principle and led the Board to fail to consider competing interpretations of the provision and to assess those competing interpretations in the context of the entire history of the subject properties and the purpose of the tax incentive scheme.
[12] For example, the Board noted that the purpose of the scheme is to provide an incentive to build multi-unit residential buildings. It found that its interpretation was not inconsistent with that purpose. This finding is true, but it fails to address that its interpretation provides an incentive that is overbroad compared to its purpose – that is, the incentive will be provided for projects that are already underway and have been incentivized by other incentive schemes (in this case, the incentives provided in the development Agreement).
[13] It is apparent that more than one interpretation may be available for the provision, and the interpretation chosen by the Board has the effect of conferring a substantial windfall benefit on projects that are (a) advanced to the point that no incentive is required for them to be completed; and (b) have been the beneficiaries of other incentives already granted by a municipality.
[14] There is no transitional language in the provision at issue, as was noted by the Board in its decision. This may leave only two tenable interpretations available for the provision: the building permit issued at the outset or the final of a series of building permits. It is unclear on the record and findings below that the former interpretation would fail to provide necessary incentives to continue with projects already underway, and if it was considered that it might, the extent to which this “under-inclusiveness” compared to the windfalls that would result by the “over-inclusiveness” of the interpretation adopted by the Board. Further, there is no consideration of the extent to which any “under-inclusiveness” of adopting the “first permit” test could be addressed by developers seeking project-specific incentives from municipalities to pursue their projects.
[15] I would not wade further into the relative merits of the two possible interpretations I have described, nor would I exclude possible other interpretations that may be urged by the parties (though I would note that the interpretations available would become, in effect. the “test” for application of the provision and would necessarily have to be expressed as such: the Appellant’s suggestion that there be some sort of assessment of the degree of progress of a project that is underway does not appear to have any support in the language of the Regulation). As argued by the respondent Medallion, the “test” cannot spring from the particular facts of this case, but rather, is an analysis that is to be provided to the facts of this case.
[16] These points arise in the context of assessment classifications that allocate tax burdens among ratepayers within the municipality. While I agree with the respondent that the Board may not re-write clear legislative provisions on the basis of the Board’s view of what is fair, the Board is entitled to note the effect of these realty tax incentives and to presume that Ontario did not intend a grossly unfair result to other ratepayers as a result of an over-inclusive incentive scheme. . Ajax (Town) v. Medallion Devels. (Bayly Square) A Ltd.
In (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a municipal appeal (brought with leave), this against "a decision of the Assessment Review Board (“ARB”), varying the classification applied by the respondent MPAC to the Medallion Respondents’ multi-unit rental residential properties".
The court noted tax incentives (under the Assessment Act) designed to increase rental housing conversion:[2] The case below concerned a legal question of first impression: the meaning of the phrase “a building permit” in the context of a realty tax incentive enacted by Ontario to encourage development of rental residential accommodation. The incentive is reduced municipal taxes (compared to other multi-unit residential properties) for a period of thirty-five years.
[3] Prior to this legislated incentive, municipalities could implement such a scheme locally. The Appellant municipality did not implement that scheme, but instead provided incentives on a project-by-project basis, tailored to the circumstances of the project.
[4] The Appellant municipality did enter into such an agreement with the Medallion Respondents for the development that includes the properties at issue. The agreement provides substantial tax incentives to Medallion and obliges Medallion to proceed with the development. The agreement pre-dates the tax incentive legislation at issue in this case.
[5] Medallion obtained initial building permits for the two buildings at issue – well prior to the new realty tax incentive scheme. As is common (but not universal) for large projects, “serial building permits” were issued for different stages of construction, all in respect to the same projects – and all under the same building permit numbers for each of Building A and Building B. The “final” building permits (in respect to the rental residential portion of the buildings) were issued after the effective commencement date of the new realty tax incentive scheme.
[6] Ontario’s new realty tax incentive applies to the “new multi-residential property class” defined in O. Reg. 282/98 (The “Regulation). Section 4 of the Regulations states:(1) The multi-residential property class consists of the following:
1. Land used for residential purposes that has seven or more self-contained units other than land included in the residential property class under paragraph 1 of subsection 3(1).
2. Vacant land principally zoned for multi-residential development.
(2) Land in the new multi-residential property class is not included in the multi-residential property class. Subsection 10(2) of the Regulation provides:The new multi-residential property class consists of land described in paragraph 1 of subsection 4(1) whose units have been built, or converted from a non-residential use, pursuant to a building permit issued,
(a) on or after April 20, 2017; or
(b) before April 20, 2017, if, at the time at which the permit was issued, a by-law was in force that opted to have the property class apply in the municipality, in accordance with subsection (1) of this section as it read immediately before it was revoked by O. Reg. 264/17. . Voices of Willowdale Inc. v. City of Toronto
In Voices of Willowdale Inc. v. City of Toronto (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this against an OLT decision "to adopt a zoning by-law to permit the construction of a three-story apartment building for people leaving homelessness. The new development would be in addition to the existing four-story building on the property, which houses 600 senior citizens.":[8] The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether the proposed development would be compatible with the existing Willowdale Manor. Before the Tribunal, the Common Interest Parties submitted that for the new development to be compatible with Willowdale Manor, the new development should be restricted senior citizens leaving homelessness.
....
ii. The decision is consistent with the Provincial Planning statement
[38] The Tribunal also heard submissions on whether restricting the proposed development to senior citizens is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS). The Tribunal found that limiting the new development to senior citizens would be inconsistent with the PPS and impermissible.
[39] Decisions affecting planning matters "shall be consistent with" policy statements issued under the Planning Act, including the Provincial Planning Statement: Planning Act, s. 3. Section 4.4 of the PPS states that it must be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other words, any planning decision must comply with the Human Rights Code and the Charter.
[40] The Tribunal found that limiting the entire Subject Property to senior citizens would be inconsistent with the PPS because it would limit the occupancy of the proposed building in a way that violates the equality rights in Human Rights Code and the Charter. Section 3 of the Human Rights Code, and s. 15 of the Charter provide that every person has the right to equal treatment without discrimination with respect to age.
[41] While there are circumstances under which age restrictions have been permitted, the Tribunal found that the evidence did not to support the Applicant’s position that the new development should be zoned for senior citizens only. The Tribunal found, "regulating the user of the land or regulating based on concerns about who the occupants are or will be, constitutes people zoning and is illegal, absent specific legislative exception."
[42] The Chair agreed with the Tribunal’s decision adding the words "for senior citizens" to the zoning by-law would unreasonably limit the occupancy based on age and would be inconsistent with the PPS. The Chair, therefore, found that the Tribunal’s decision was reasonable.
[43] While the words "illegal" and "impermissible" may not be the language I would have used, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to find that limiting the zoning to senior citizens would be inconsistent with the PPS and not appropriate in these circumstances. It was also reasonable for the Chair to uphold that finding. . Wabauskang First Nation v. R.
In Wabauskang First Nation v. R. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a first nations JR, here against "two decisions ... to "take up" land pursuant to Treaty No. 3 without the Crown first discharging their constitutional duty to consult the Applicants".
In these quotes the court illustrates some recent (2024) provincial procedures to obtain new development land, given the housing shortage:[7] The Municipality is facing a housing crisis and is limited in its ability to rectify this crisis without the Ministry transferring land.
[8] At least since 2008, the Municipality has been working towards the development and acquisition of Harry's Corner, and other surrounding lands. They have established road, sewer, and water infrastructure to support the proposed expansion.
[9] In April 2021, the Municipality and the Ministry completed their search for Crown land areas for the purpose of meeting the Municipality’s residential and economic development needs.
[10] Three parcels of land within its municipal boundaries were identified. However, Ministry Staff determined that two of the parcels were not available for disposition to the Municipality because they were located along the shores of Red Lake.
[11] Harry's Corner, the third area, was identified as an appropriate parcel of land for disposition under the Public Lands Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.43. Specifically, its proximity to municipal water and sewer infrastructure made it suitable for housing and commercial development.
[12] The Crown Land Use Policy Atlas G2514 (the "CLUPA") governs the Disposition of Crown Land located within the Municipality. A Crown Land Use Policy Atlas sets out permissible uses of Crown land areas. The existing CLUPA did not allow for Crown land disposition for residential and urban development because it was subject to a forest management plan. Therefore, the Ministry could not transfer Harry's Corner to the Municipality without an amendment of the CLUPA.
[13] On November 19, 2021, the Municipality formally requested that the Minister consider an amendment to the CLUPA. This amendment of the CLUPA would enable the disposition of Harry's Corner for residential and urban development. During this same period, the Ministry received feedback from municipalities that the current process for obtaining Crown land for development was difficult.
[14] In January 2022, the Municipality was chosen to participate in a pilot project for a more streamlined approach for the disposition of Crown land.
[15] On March 11, 2022, the Municipality applied to the Ministry for the purchase of Harry's Corner.
[16] On April 1, 2022, the Ministry posted a notice of the proposed CLUPA amendment, on a database used by the Government of Ontario to notify the public about environmental matters, including proposals regarding new or amended policies.
[17] The proposal for the disposition of Harry's Corner was added to another database, accessible online to the public and other ministries.
[18] In April 2022, the Ministry also sought and received consent from Pacton Gold Inc., to dispose of its surface mining rights for Harry's Corner. The consent did not cover subsurface rights.
[19] On April 5, 2022, a notification protocol form was sent to both Wabauskang and Lac Seul, requesting consultation on the proposed CLUPA amendment and the proposed disposition of Harry's Corner. The Ministry received confirmation that the First Nations were notified.
|
