Council Motion to Remove Toronto from OMB
Councillor Josh Matlow OMB Facts Site
MPP Rosario Marchese – Author of Bill 20, Respect for Toronto Act
Why is the Federal Government in the Business of Selling Downsview?
How Does the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) affect Downsview
SET DOWSVIEW PARK FREE FROM FEDERAL CLC
SET DOWNSVIEW FREE FROM THE OMB
Read: City Council Item to Remove Toronto from OMB
Read: Bill 20, Respect for Municipalities Act (City of Toronto), 2014
watch video playlist in HD here
Globe & Mail – Augimeri challenges Ottawa over future of Downsview Park
North York Mirror – New worries sparked over Downsview Park
The Star – Councillor Maria Augimeri demands that Ottawa hand over Downsview Park
CP24 – Augimeri calls on feds to give city control of Downsview Park
Torontoist – Duly Quoted: Councillor Maria Augimeri, on the Future of Downsview Park
The Sun – Downsview Park should be given to Toronto: Councillor
North York Mirror – New worries sparked over Downsview Park
Global News – New campaign to ‘Set Downsview Free’ from feds
Newstalk 1010 – Councillor: Downsview Park should be run by the city
Secret memo urged minister to steer Downsview Park plan to avoid a sell-off
Ottawa needs to step up on Downsview Park
Mattamy to partner on Downsview Park redevelopment
Councillors want to exempt Toronto from OMB oversight
OMB Approves Home Illegally Built
Time to scrap quasi-judicial, unelected and unaccountable Ontario Municipal Board
Time to set Toronto free from OMB
Toronto needs more control over its development
Show your support for the Set Downsview Free Campaign and order a lawn sign!
There are many ways you can get a lawn sign.
1. Order one by calling 416-392-4021 or email Councillor_Augimeri@toronto.ca with your information and we will deliver.
2. Pick one up at our Community Office located at 660 Wilson Avenue (west of Dufferin).
Help Set Downsview Free.
1. Download one of the petitions by clicking on an image below.
2. Start a petition group in your neighbourhood.
3. Print petition for your group and canvass your neighbours.
4. Return completed petitions to my community office at 660 Wilson Avenue (west of Dufferin)
This petition is to Set Downsview Free from the Federal Government.
This petition is to Free Downsview From the Ontario Municipal Board.
Mike Slaughter
Downsview Park, as it appeared when the federal government first announced its creation.
There was excitement in the city when the federal government announced it would transform CFB Downsview into Canada’s “first national urban park.”
That was in 1999. Since then, the 232-hectare (572-acre) site has become a desert of political mismanagement, bureaucratic confusion, civic hostility and rampant NIMBYism.
But with a public “consultation” meeting looming on April 23, the troubled project will do yet another turn in the spotlight.
This time around, Torontonians will be anxious to see what plans Canada Lands Company has for Downsview. The federal agency, whose mandate is to sell surplus government-owned land or operate it for profit, took control of the site in late 2012 after it was wrested from another Crown corporation created to oversee its revitalization. Parc Downsview Park (PDP), as it was called, spent a decade spinning its wheels. In the last few years, however, it was beginning to put things together.
That’s when Ottawa pulled the plug.
Related:
The move, which came out of nowhere, shocked many. It happened at precisely the wrong time, sent exactly the wrong message and made a mockery of a process that, though it had worked poorly, was the best available.
Keeping in mind that Downsview has the potential to change Toronto, not just the neighbourhood, it is disturbing to see how completely the federal government has failed. Either Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has no interest in Canada’s biggest city, or it just doesn’t know any better. Neither option is flattering to Harper or Toronto.
But then, perhaps because PDP was proposed by Harper’s Liberal predecessor, Jean Chrétien, it had to be destroyed.
In any case, it seems the scheme is a casualty of the suspiciousness, hyper-partisanship and bloody-mindedness that characterizes the current federal regime. Downsview could have been an exemplar, a waterfront or Regent Park, a city-building, wealth-creating exercise planned intelligently and boldly from the ground up by a partnership of private and public players.
Served by two subway stops and bisected by GO rail tracks, the site has room for parkland as well as residential, institutional, corporate and retail development. Unlike its post-war surroundings, the new Downsview was meant to be dense, urban and diverse to take advantage of the area’s advantages, transit and spatial.
Even a quick drive up Keele St. is enough to see how much progress has been made. A park has appeared, young and still not fully formed, but a definitely a park. Houses planned for one corner of the site have yet to be built, but thanks to Herculean efforts of PDP’s last chair, former councillor and current mayoralty candidate David Soknacki, a plan exists. Indeed, if Downsview Park has a hero, it is Soknacki, who planted trees, dug ponds and moved earth, if not heaven, to make it happen.
Regardless, the Tories have decided Rouge Park will be Canada’s “first national urban park within a municipality.” That means Canada Lands’ task will be to sell off as much of Downsview as possible for as much as possible. City-building be damned. Ottawa will never admit this, of course, but if it weren’t so, why would it have killed PDP?
And so the time and effort spent extending subways, drawing up plans, opening green space and setting the stage for smart growth could well end up an afterthought. The federal government may want to do the right thing; then again, it may not.
The fact the public works minister felt it necessary to write a letter ordering the CLC to hold off on the “For Sale” signs doesn’t inspire confidence. Once again, the federal government has taken Downsview for a walk in the park.
Downsview Changes
Downsview continues to be a place where people want to live work and play.
We have great access to transit, a great quality of life, tight-knit communities, and wonderful spaces for families to grow.
It is no wonder Toronto Life rated Downsview in the top 20% of best places to live in Toronto.
More than ever people are flocking to Downsview. This means there is pressure to change, and revitalize old properties into more livable spaces.
While change is inevitable, the community is vital to guiding that change, which is why I look to our community to help whenever change is proposed.
How it Works
Each time a new development proposal is put forward called an “application” it is sent to the City. I am informed if there is a zoning change necessary. I typically form a panel of community members consisting of people who would be directly affected by the change.
These proposals aren’t final, they are simply the first stage of an “ask” of the City. If that ask requires an zoning amendment/redesignation it usually results in a public meeting called a “statutory public meeting” held by the City as is required by law.
It is at these statutory public meetings that I ask interested members of the community to form the panel which will guide the process.
Together, we work through the application with City planning staff to determine what is best for the community.
If all goes correctly, the community and the applicant are satisfied that the change meets community needs, as well as the needs of the property owner.
When it Doesn’t Work
Sometimes the developer or “applicant” does not assist or cooperate in this process. This can result in an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) challenge. The Ontario Municipal Board is an agency of the Provincial Government. It is like a court where unsatisfied or frustrated applicants who don’t like the decision made on their application at the City level can ask to have them reviewed (and possibly overturned).
When an applicant is successful at the OMB, a municipal By-law is automatically written allowing the development. This removing any ability for the local community or the elected representative from providing input on the change. It gets no further input from those affected.
Many have criticized the OMB for making bad decisions that hurt communities. This is why I have been part of an effort to remove Toronto from the OMB’s jurisdiction. I believe we have expert staff and leadership necessary to properly guide community changes. We do not need a Provincial agency deciding whether to overrule local decisions. The OMB challenge constantly hangs over the head of communities who simply wish the best for their neighbourhoods and is sometimes used punitively by the applicant against a community who is simply trying to get the best outcome for all.
Weeks after Ottawa abruptly handed Downsview Park over to a Crown land company, there was uneasiness within the government about whether the green space might be sold off, a secret memo obtained by the Star reveals.
Former public works minister Rona Ambrose’s decision in November 2012 to give Canada Lands Co. control of the 231-hectare property at Keele St. and Sheppard Ave. W. was controversial, coming just as many believed the long-awaited park project was finally seeing progress.
Some critics questioned what a company with expertise in selling Crown land had in store for the surplus military base, which Ottawa had trumpeted as “Canada’s first national urban park” in 1999.
Internal communications obtained by the Star reveal that Public Works Deputy Minister Michelle d’Auray expressed similar concerns about the future of the park, which will be the subject of a public consultation next week.
In a December 2012 memorandum to the minister marked “secret,” d’Auray remarked on the “fundamental difference” between the mandate of Canada Lands and that of the Crown entities that had previously controlled the Downsview property and the Old Port of Montreal — which was also handed over in November 2012.
Canada Lands Co. “is commercially oriented toward the disposal of certain properties for profit” as well as holding and managing other properties,” d’Auray wrote.
In contrast, the Parc Downsview Park organization was dedicated to managing “the Downsview lands a a national urban park for all Canadians,” d’Auray observed.
“In the absence of direction from you, (Canada Lands Co.) may be inclined to propose disposal of some or all of the property at the two urban parks, consistent with its mandate, or propose a commercially oriented use of the property,” she said.
D’Auray recommended the minister “address this potential area of conflict” through a “letter of expectations” to Canada Lands Co.
Public Works Minister Diane Finley declined a request for an interview on Tuesday.
In response to questions about what direction she has given Canada Lands Co., Finley’s spokesman, Alyson Queen, told the Star in an email: “As we’ve indicated many times, there is no intention to sell the parkland at Downsview Park. This has not changed.”
Robert Howald, senior vice-president of real estate for Canada Lands Co., said the company received a letter of expectations from the minister in January 2013.
Howald declined to share the letter with the Star, but said the minister provided “sufficient direction for us to have understood” government priorities.
“There was the direction to ensure that any plans that we had for Downsview or the Old Port of Montreal were spelled out in our corporate plan drafts, so that the minister would be aware of what it is we were looking to do, and would certainly have the opportunity to comment further,” he said.
The “strategic priorities” for Downsview listed in the recent corporate plan are to “implement a comprehensive development plan for its development sites and begin the creation of a new and innovative community.” (The company’s plans are approved annually by the federal treasury department.)
Howald said the company has “no plans” to seek changes to the current secondary plan, which identifies five sites for development as well as a large public space and would be “extremely difficult” to alter.
However, former Downsview Park chairman David Soknacki said that while the secondary plan places tight control on development in the southernmost neighbourhood, that is less the case “on the other areas of the park that still need to be filled in.”
Soknacki, who is now running for mayor, said d’Auray’s memo confirms that the concerns he had when the park changed hands “had at least a kernel of validity.”
“I am relieved that the safeguards that we put in place in the planning process are there. I don’t know if they will be challenged from the different mandate from Canada Lands,” he said. “That is the key issue. Everything else falls from that difference.”
The documents obtained by the Star through a freedom of information request show the consulting group Sussex Circle delivered a “scoping study” of the parent company Canada Lands Co. Ltd. and its three subsidiaries — Canada Lands Co., Parc Downsview Park and the Old Port of Montreal — to public works in January 2012.
The report, also marked “secret,” included a proposal to give the City of Toronto control of Downsview.
A spokesman for public works said city officials were not consulted about this option.
Although the report recommended consolidating Parc Downsview Park and the Old Port of Montreal with Canada Lands Co., it advised that government “proceed carefully” because of “local stakeholder interest.”
The next public meeting on the future of Downsview will be held at the Warehouse Event Venue on April 23 at 6:30 p.m.
A Toronto MPP is trying to free the city from the shackles of the Ontario Municipal Board.
NDP MPP Rosario Marchese (Trinity—Spadina) is pushing private member’s legislation that would exempt the provincial capital from the OMB’s oversight of planning issues.
“Toronto is 179 years old. It’s time to treat it like an adult,” Marchese said in a statement to announce his bill, which will be debated Thursday at Queen’s Park.
“My bill would allow the city of Toronto to assume authority over zoning bylaws, development approvals and other planning matters within its boundaries. Toronto would also have the ability to establish an appeals body of its own, if it wishes,” he said.
Marchese’s initiative comes more than a year after city council voted 34-5 to pull out of the shadowy quasi-judicial board that often overturns decisions made by elected officials.
Critics have argued that the OMB favours developers, who can hire lawyers and planners, over neighbourhood activists.
“The adversarial OMB process pits cash-strapped residents and overworked city planners against deep-pocketed developers,” said Marchese.
Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Linda Jeffrey said the minority Liberal government is “keeping an open mind” about the NDP proposal.
“It’s a very interesting private member’s bill. I’m always receptive to hearing ideas about how we can make our institutions stronger,” Jeffrey told the Star.
“Obviously as minister . . . I have to look at all legislation and what impacts it would have across the 444 municipalities that I serve,” she said.
Progressive Conservative House leader Jim Wilson said his party “is inclined not support it,” but conceded Marchese has struck a chord on the almost universal dissatisfaction with the OMB.
“Probably every member would want to be exempt from the Ontario Municipal Board because we get a lot of complaints from constituents,” said Wilson (Simcoe—Grey).
Last year, when she was municipal affairs and housing minister in former premier Dalton McGuinty’s government, Premier Kathleen Wynne expressed the need for changes to the OMB.
City Council consideration on February 6, 2012
| PG9.11 | ACTION | Amended | Ward:All |
| Removing Toronto from the Jurisdiction of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) and Asking the Province of Ontario to Abolish the OMB – Motion MM11.7 Referred by City Council on September 21 and 22, 2011 |
| City Council Decision |
| City Council on February 6 and 7, 2012, adopted the following:
|
| Background Information (Committee) |
| (September 23, 2011) Member Motion regarding the Ontario Municipal Board (http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-41974.pdf) |
| Background Information (City Council) |
| Deferred Item PG9.11 (http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-44853.pdf) |
Marchese, Rosario – Original Here
Current Status: Consideration by Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs
Viewing: Original (current version) pdf
Bill 20 2013
An Act respecting the City of Toronto and the Ontario Municipal Board
Note: This Act amends or repeals more than one Act. For the legislative history of these Acts, see the Table of Consolidated Public Statutes – Detailed Legislative History at www.e-Laws.gov.on.ca.
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
City of Toronto Act, 2006
1. (1) Subsection 114 (5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 is amended by striking out “or, where a referral has been made under subsection (15), the Ontario Municipal Board” in the portion before paragraph 1.
(2) Subsections 114 (7) and (8) of the Act are repealed.
(3) Subsections 114 (15) and (16) of the Act are repealed.
(4) Section 114 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Transition re Ontario Municipal Board
(18) Subsections (7) and (8) continue to apply with respect to a motion for directions if notice of the motion is given before the day on which subsection (7) is repealed.
Same
(19) Subsections (15) and (16) continue to apply with respect to particular plans or drawings and with respect to all or part of any particular requirement made by the City if written notice about the plans or drawings or written notice about the unsatisfactory requirement or the unsatisfactory part of the requirement is given in accordance with subsection (15) before the day on which that subsection is repealed.
2. (1) Subsection 115 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
Appeal bodies for land use planning matters
(1) The City may by by-law constitute and appoint one or more appeal bodies for land use planning matters, composed of such persons as the City considers advisable, subject to subsections (2), (3) and (4).
(2) Subsection 115 (2) of the Act is amended by striking out “the appeal body” in the portion before clause (a) and substituting “an appeal body”.
(3) Subsection 115 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “the appeal body” and substituting “an appeal body”.
(4) Subsection 115 (4) of the Act is amended by striking out “the appeal body” in the portion before clause (a) and substituting “an appeal body”.
(5) Subsections 115 (5) and (6) of the Act are repealed and the following substituted:
Jurisdiction of appeal body
(5) The City may by by-law empower an appeal body to hear one or more of the following matters that, under the Condominium Act, 1998, the Ontario Heritage Act or the Planning Act, can be heard or determined by the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to land use planning in another municipality:
1. An appeal or a motion for directions, as the case may be, under subsection 9 (2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 with respect to the incorporation by reference of subsection 51 (34), (39) or (48) of the Planning Act.
2. An appeal under subsection 34.1 (1), 40.1 (4), 41 (4) or 42 (6) of the Ontario Heritage Act.
3. An appeal or a motion for directions, as the case may be, under any of the following subsections of the Planning Act:
i. Re official plan approvals: Subsection 17 (24), (36) or (40).
ii. Re amendment of official plan: Subsection 22 (6.2) or (7).
iii. Re community improvement plan: Subsection 28 (5), with respect to the incorporation by reference of subsection 17 (24).
iv. Re demolition control area: Subsection 33 (4), (10) or (15).
v. Re zoning by-laws: Subsection 34 (10.5), (11) or (19).
vi. Re holding provision by-laws: Subsection 36 (3).
vii. Re interim control by-laws: Subsection 38 (4).
viii. Re conveyance of land for park or other recreational purposes: Subsection 42 (10) or (11).
ix. Re committee of adjustment: Subsection 45 (12).
x. Re plan of subdivision approvals: Subsection 51 (19.2), (34), (39), (43) or (48).
xi. Re consents: Subsection 53 (14), (19) or (27).
Same
(5.1) The City may by by-law empower an appeal body to hear one or more of the following matters with respect to land use planning:
1. An appeal of a by-law made or proposed under a special Act conferring authority on the City or a predecessor municipality, or an appeal of a decision made under such a by-law.
2. Such other matters as the City considers appropriate.
Right of appeal, etc.
(6) A by-law that empowers an appeal body to hear an appeal or a motion must also establish the right of one or more persons to bring such an appeal or to make such a motion.
Powers and duties re appeal, etc.
(6.1) If an appeal body is empowered to hear a matter described in subsection (5), the appeal body has the same powers and duties with respect to the matter as those of the Ontario Municipal Board under the Condominium Act, 1998, the Ontario Heritage Act or the Planning Act, as the case may be, in relation to an analogous matter under that Act.
Same
(6.2) If an appeal body is empowered to hear a matter described in subsection (5.1), the appeal body has the powers and duties set out in the by-law with respect to the matter.
(6) Subsection 115 (7) of the Act is amended by striking out “The appeal body” at the beginning and substituting “An appeal body”.
(7) Subsection 115 (8) of the Act is amended by striking out “to the appeal body” and substituting “to an appeal body”.
(8) Subsection 115 (9) of the Act is amended by striking out “from the appeal body” and substituting “from an appeal body”.
(9) Subsections 115 (9.1) to (22) of the Act are repealed.
3. Clause 123 (e) of the Act is repealed.
4. (1) Subsection 128 (3) of the Act is amended by striking out “specifying the last date for filing a notice of appeal under subsection (4)” at the end.
(2) Subsections 128 (4), (5), (6) and (7) of the Act are repealed.
(3) Subsection 128 (8) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
Coming into force of by-law
(8) The by-law comes into force on the day the new city council is organized following,
(a) the first regular election after the by-law is passed if the by-law is passed before January 1 in the year of the regular election; and
(b) the second regular election after the by-law is passed, in all other cases except where the by-law is repealed by the Board.
5. Subsections 129 (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the Act are repealed.
Condominium Act, 1998
6. Section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998 is amended by adding the following subsection:
Exception, City of Toronto
(2.1) For greater certainty, subsections 51 (34), (39) and (48) of the Planning Act do not apply with respect to a property that is located in the City of Toronto, except as otherwise provided in section 51 of that Act.
Consolidated Hearings Act
7. Section 2 of the Consolidated Hearings Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Exception, City of Toronto
(2) For greater certainty, this Act does not apply in respect of a matter under the Condominium Act, 1998, the Ontario Heritage Act or the Planning Act relating to an undertaking or activity in the City of Toronto if an appeal body established by the City council under section 115 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 is required or permitted to hold a hearing before a final decision about the matter is made.
Development Charges Act, 1997
8. The Development Charges Act, 1997 is amended by adding the following section:
Exception, City of Toronto
18.1 (1) Sections 10 to 18 do not apply with respect to a development charge by-law of the City of Toronto.
Transition
(2) Despite subsection (1), sections 10 to 18 continue to apply with respect to a by-law if the written notice referred to in subsection 13 (1) is given before the day on which this section comes into force.
9. Section 19 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Exception, City of Toronto
(1.1) For greater certainty, subsection (1) does not apply with respect to an amendment to a development charge by-law of the City of Toronto.
10. The Act is amended by adding the following section:
Exception, City of Toronto
24.1 (1) Sections 21 to 24 do not apply with respect to a development charge by-law of the City of Toronto.
Transition
(2) Despite subsection (1), sections 21 to 24 continue to apply with respect to an appeal if notice of the appeal under subsection 22 (1) or (2) is filed before the day on which this section comes into force.
11. The Act is amended by adding the following section:
Exception, City of Toronto
49.1 (1) Sections 46 to 48 do not apply with respect to a front-ending agreement entered into by the City of Toronto.
Transition
(2) Despite subsection (1), sections 46 to 48 continue to apply with respect to an objection to a front-ending agreement if notice of the objection is filed in accordance with section 47 before the day on which this section comes into force.
12. Section 50 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Exception, City of Toronto
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) does not apply with respect to an amendment to a front-ending agreement entered into by the City of Toronto.
Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002
13. Section 85 of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002 is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply with respect to a decision of the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(4) Despite subsection (1.1), subsection (1) continues to apply with respect to an appeal of a decision of the City of Toronto under section 84 if notice of the appeal is given before the day on which subsection (1.1) comes into force.
Ontario Heritage Act
14. Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Exception, City of Toronto
(4.1) The following rules apply if the property is located in the City of Toronto, and if the City passes a by-law under subsection 115 (5) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 authorizing appeals relating to applications made under subsection (1):
1. The time period mentioned in subsection (2) applies only with respect to the initial decision of the council, and not with respect to the appeal.
2. A deemed consent described in subsection (4) takes effect upon the expiry of the time period mentioned in subsection (2) and cannot be appealed.
3. The rules governing an appeal, including the applicable deadline for giving notice of the decision on the appeal to the owner and to the Trust, are as set out in the by-law providing for the appeal.
4. If the initial decision is appealed, and if council fails to give notice of the decision on the appeal to the owner and the Trust by the applicable deadline, the council is deemed to have consented to the application under subsection (1).
15. Section 34.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(1.1) Subsection (1) does not apply if the property is located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(8) Despite subsection (1.1), subsection (1) continues to apply with respect to a decision of Toronto city council if the applicable notice of appeal, accompanied by the required fee, is given in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) before the day on which subsection (1.1) comes into force.
16. Subsection 34.5 (10) of the Act is amended by striking out “Section 34.1 applies” at the beginning and substituting “Subsections 34.1 (1) and (2) to (7) apply”.
17. Section 40.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(4.1) Subsection (4) does not apply if the heritage conservation study area is located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(7) Despite subsection (4.1), subsection (4) continues to apply with respect to a by-law passed under subsection (1) if the applicable notice of appeal, accompanied by the required fee, is given in accordance with subsection (4) before the day on which subsection (4.1) comes into force.
18. Section 41 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(4.1) Subsection (4) does not apply if the heritage conservation district is located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(13) Despite subsection (4.1), subsection (4) continues to apply with respect to a by-law passed under this section if the applicable notice of appeal, accompanied by the required fee, is given in accordance with subsection (4) before the day on which subsection (4.1) comes into force.
19. Section 42 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(6.1) Subsection (6) does not apply if the property is located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(18) Despite subsection (6.1), subsection (6) continues to apply with respect to a decision of Toronto city council if the applicable notice of appeal is given in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) before the day on which subsection (6.1) comes into force.
Planning Act
20. Section 17 of the Planning Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(24.0.1) Subsection (24) does not apply with respect to all or part of a plan of the City of Toronto or all or part of a proposed amendment to such a plan.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(36.0.1) Subsection (36) does not apply with respect to all or part of a plan of the City of Toronto or all or part of a proposed amendment to such a plan.
. . . . .
Exception
(40.1) Subsection (40) does not apply with respect to all or part of a plan of the City of Toronto or all or part of a proposed amendment to such a plan.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(55) Despite subsection (24.0.1), subsection (24) continues to apply with respect to a particular plan of the City of Toronto or a particular proposed amendment if the applicable notice of appeal is filed in accordance with subsections (24), (25) and (26) before the day on which subsection (24.0.1) comes into force.
Same
(56) Despite subsection (36.0.1), subsection (36) continues to apply with respect to the decision of an approval authority about a particular plan of the City of Toronto or a particular proposed amendment if the applicable notice of appeal is filed in accordance with subsections (36) and (37) before the day on which subsection (36.0.1) comes into force.
Same
(57) Despite subsection (40.1), subsection (40) continues to apply with respect to a particular plan of the City of Toronto or a particular proposed amendment if the applicable notice of appeal is filed in accordance with subsections (40) and (41) before the day on which subsection (40.1) comes into force.
21. Section 22 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(6.2.1) Subsection (6.2) does not apply with respect to a request to amend the official plan of the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(7.0.0.1) Subsection (7) does not apply with respect to a request to amend the official plan of the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(14) Despite subsection (6.2.1), subsection (6.2) continues to apply with respect to a particular motion for directions relating to a request to amend the official plan of the City of Toronto if notice of the motion for directions is given before the day on which subsection (6.2.1) comes into force.
Same
(15) Despite subsection (7.0.0.1), subsection (7) continues to apply with respect to a particular request to amend the official plan of the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal is filed in accordance with subsections (7) and (7.0.3) before the day on which subsection (7.0.0.1) comes into force.
22. Section 28 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(5.3) For greater certainty, despite subsection (5), subsection 17 (24) does not apply with respect to a community improvement plan of the City of Toronto or a proposed amendment to it.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(14) Despite subsection (5.3), subsection 17 (24) continues to apply, with necessary modifications, with respect to a particular community improvement plan of the City of Toronto or a particular proposed amendment to it if the applicable notice of appeal is filed in accordance with subsections 17 (24), (25) and (26) before the day on which subsection (5.3) comes into force.
23. Section 33 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(4.1) Subsection (4) does not apply with respect to an application to the council of the City of Toronto for a demolition permit.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(10.1) Subsection (10) does not apply with respect to a demolition permit issued by Toronto city council.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(15.1) Subsection (15) does not apply with respect to a demolition permit issued by Toronto city council.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(20) Despite subsection (4.1), subsection (4) continues to apply with respect to a particular application to the council of the City of Toronto for a demolition permit if the applicable notice of appeal is given in accordance with subsection (5) before the day on which subsection (4.1) comes into force.
Same
(21) Despite subsection (10.1), subsection (10) continues to apply with respect to a particular demolition permit issued by Toronto city council if notice of the applicable appeal under subsection (10) is filed before the day on which subsection (10.1) comes into force.
Same
(22) Despite subsection (15.1), subsection (15) continues to apply with respect to a particular demolition permit issued by Toronto city council if notice of the applicable appeal under subsection (15) is filed before the day on which subsection (15.1) comes into force.
24. Section 34 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(10.5.1) Subsection (10.5) does not apply with respect to an application to amend a by-law concerning any land, building or structure located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(11.0.0.1) Subsection (11) does not apply with respect to an application to amend a by-law concerning any land, building or structure located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(19.0.1) Subsection (19) does not apply with respect to a by-law concerning any land, building or structure located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(35) Despite subsection (10.5.1), subsection (10.5) continues to apply with respect to a particular motion for directions relating to an application to amend a by-law concerning any land, building or structure located in the City of Toronto if notice of the motion for directions is given before the day on which subsection (10.5.1) comes into force.
Same
(36) Despite subsection (11.0.0.1), subsection (11) continues to apply with respect to a particular application to amend a by-law concerning any land, building or structure located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal is filed in accordance with subsections (11) and (11.0.3) before the day on which subsection (11.0.0.1) comes into force.
Same
(37) Despite subsection (19.0.1), subsection (19) continues to apply with respect to a particular by-law concerning any land, building or structure located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal is filed in accordance with subsection (19) before the day on which subsection (19.0.1) comes into force.
25. Section 36 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(3.0.1) Subsection (3) does not apply with respect to a by-law passed under section 34 concerning any land, building or structure located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(5) Despite subsection (3.0.1), subsection (3) continues to apply with respect to a particular application for amendment to a by-law concerning any land, building or structure located in the City of Toronto if notice of the applicable appeal under subsection (3) is given before the day on which subsection (3.0.1) comes into force.
26. Section 38 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(4.1) Subsection (4) does not apply with respect to an interim control by-law concerning land, buildings or structures located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(9) Despite subsection (4.1), subsection (4) continues to apply with respect to a particular interim control by-law concerning land, buildings or structures located in the City of Toronto if the notice of appeal is filed in accordance with subsection (4) before the day on which subsection (4.1) comes into force.
27. Section 42 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exceptions, City of Toronto
(13.1) Subsections (10), (11), (12) and (13) do not apply with respect to a dispute between the City of Toronto and an owner of land located in the City.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(17) Despite subsection (13.1), subsection (10) or (11) continues to apply with respect to a particular dispute between the City of Toronto and an owner of land located in the City if the application to the Municipal Board under subsection (10) or (11), as the case may be, is made before the day on which subsection (13.1) comes into force.
Same
(18) Despite subsection (13.1), subsections (12) and (13) continue to apply with respect to a particular dispute between the City of Toronto and an owner of land located in the City if the payment is made, and the notice required by subsection (13) is given, before the day on which subsection (13.1) comes into force.
28. Section 45 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(12.1) Subsection (12) does not apply with respect to a decision of the committee of adjustment of the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(21) Despite subsection (12.1), subsection (12) continues to apply with respect to a particular decision of the committee of adjustment of the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal is given in accordance with subsection (12) before the day on which subsection (12.1) comes into force.
29. Section 51 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(19.2.1) Subsection (19.2) does not apply with respect to an application for approval of a plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(34.0.1) Subsection (34) does not apply with respect to an application for approval of a plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(39.1) Subsection (39) does not apply with respect to a draft plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(43.1) Subsection (43) does not apply with respect to a plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(48.1) Subsection (48) does not apply with respect to a plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(62) Despite subsection (19.2.1), subsection (19.2) continues to apply with respect to a particular motion for directions relating to an application for approval of a plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto if the motion for directions is made in accordance with subsection (19.2) before the day on which subsection (19.2.1) comes into force.
Same
(63) Despite subsection (34.0.1), subsection (34) continues to apply with respect to a particular application for approval of a plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal, accompanied by the required fee, is filed in accordance with subsection (34) before the day on which subsection (34.0.1) comes into force.
Same
(64) Despite subsection (39.1), subsection (39) continues to apply with respect to a particular draft plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal that complies with subsections (39) and (40), accompanied by the required fee, is filed before the day on which subsection (39.1) comes into force.
Same
(65) Despite subsection (43.1), subsection (43) continues to apply with respect to a particular plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal that complies with subsection (43), accompanied by the required fee, is filed before the day on which subsection (43.1) comes into force.
Same
(66) Despite subsection (48.1), subsection (48) continues to apply with respect to a particular draft plan of subdivision for land located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal that complies with subsection (48) or (49), accompanied by the required fee, is filed before the day on which subsection (48.1) comes into force.
30. Section 53 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsections:
Exception, City of Toronto
(14.0.1) Subsection (14) does not apply with respect to an application for a consent concerning land located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(19.1) Subsection (19) does not apply with respect to a decision made or a condition imposed on a consent concerning land located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Exception, City of Toronto
(27.1) Subsection (27) does not apply with respect to a consent concerning land located in the City of Toronto.
. . . . .
Transition, City of Toronto
(45) Despite subsection (14.0.1), subsection (14) continues to apply with respect to a particular application for consent concerning land located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal, accompanied by the required fee, is filed in accordance with subsection (14) before the day on which subsection (14.0.1) comes into force.
Same
(46) Despite subsection (19.1), subsection (19) continues to apply with respect to a particular decision made or condition imposed on a consent concerning land located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal that complies with subsections (19) and (20), accompanied by the required fee, is filed before the day on which subsection (19.1) comes into force.
Same
(47) Despite subsection (27.1), subsection (27) continues to apply with respect to particular changed conditions imposed on a consent concerning land located in the City of Toronto if the applicable notice of appeal that complies with subsections (20) and (27), accompanied by the required fee, is filed before the day on which subsection (27.1) comes into force.
31. Section 69 of the Act is amended by adding the following subsection:
Exception, City of Toronto
(3.1) Subsection (3) does not apply with respect to a fee paid or payable to the City of Toronto.
Commencement and Short Title
Commencement
32. This Act comes into force on the first anniversary of the day it receives Royal Assent.
Short title
33. The short title of this Act is the Respect for Municipalities Act (City of Toronto), 2013.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The Bill changes the relationship in law between the City of Toronto and the Ontario Municipal Board. Currently, under various statutes that govern land use planning, certain municipal decisions can be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Amendments eliminate those rights of appeal with respect to decisions of the City of Toronto. Amendments also eliminate a right to make certain other types of applications to the Board with respect to the City.
The City is authorized to establish one or more appeal bodies to hear any of these matters and to hear such other matters as the City considers appropriate.
The Bill comes into force on the first anniversary of the day on which it receives Royal Assent.
Here are some highlights:
City of Toronto Act, 2006
Section 115 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 currently authorizes the City to establish one appeal body for specified local land use planning matters. The current provision assigns to the appeal body the powers of the Ontario Municipal board under specified provisions of the Planning Act. Amendments to section 115 authorize the City to establish one or more appeal bodies, and to empower an appeal body to hear one or more of a list of matters. The list is set out in subsections 115 (5) and (5.1). A consequential amendment is made to section 123, concerning the authority of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to make regulations.
Rights of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board relating to the following matters are repealed. Rights to make a motion for directions are also repealed.
1. Site plan controls — appeals and motions for directions under section 114.
2. Changes to wards — appeals under sections 128 and 129.
Condominium Act, 1998
Section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998 provides for planning approvals of condominium developments. It says that specified provisions of the Planning Act apply, with necessary modifications, with respect to condominium developments. Those provisions of the Planning Act include some that provide for appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. The amendment to section 9 eliminates the rights of appeal to the Board for a condominium development in the City of Toronto.
Consolidated Hearings Act
Section 2 of the Consolidated Hearings Act says that the Act applies when hearings by more than one tribunal may be required with respect to the same undertaking. The amendment to section 2 specifies that the Act does not apply with respect to matters that may be heard by an appeal body established by the City of Toronto.
Development Charges Act, 1997
Rights of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board under the Development Charges Act, 1997 relating to the following matters are repealed with respect to the City of Toronto:
1. Development charge by-laws — appeals under sections 10 to 19.
2. Development charges — appeals under sections 21 to 24.
3. Front-ending agreements — objections under sections 46 to 48 and 50.
Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002
Under section 84 of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, a municipality may approve a request to establish, alter or increase the capacity of a cemetery. Section 85 of the Act provides for an appeal of the municipality’s decision to the Ontario Municipality Board. The amendment to section 85 eliminates the right of appeal for a decision of the City of Toronto.
Ontario Heritage Act
Rights of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board under the Ontario Heritage Act relating to the following matters are repealed with respect to the City of Toronto:
1. Consents to demolish or remove a building or structure — appeals under section 34.1.
2. Heritage conservation study areas — appeals under section 40.1.
3. Heritage conservation districts — appeals under sections 41 and 42.
Planning Act
Rights of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board under the Planning Act relating to the following matters are repealed with respect to the City of Toronto. Rights to make a motion for directions are also repealed.
1. Official plans or amendments — appeals under sections 17 and 22, motions for directions under section 22.
2. Community improvement plans or amendments — appeals under section 28.
3. Demolition control areas — appeals under section 33.
4. Zoning by-law matters — appeals and motions for directions under section 34.
5. Holding provision by-laws — appeals under section 36.
6. Interim control by-laws — appeals under section 38.
7. Conveyances for park or other recreational purposes — appeals under section 42.
8. Committee of adjustment matters — appeals under section 45.
9. Plan of subdivision matters — appeals and motions for directions under section 51.
10. Consents — appeals under section 53.
11. Fees — appeals under section 69.
Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.