Thank you for the…

   Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Regulations related to Bill 139. Our comments are as follows.

  Transition Rules

 The transition regulations outline how the changes proposed by Bill 139 will be implemented for planning matters that are already in process at the time that the Bill is proclaimed. For planning matters in process, the OMB will continue to hear appeals on complete applications submitted before Royal Assent, provided the appeal is made before the Bill is proclaimed. The LPAT will hear appeals for any complete applications received after Royal Assent.

  Specific parts of Bill 139 that are proposed to apply immediately following Royal Assent (December 12, 2017) include:

 •restriction of grounds for appeal to consistency and/or conformity with provincial and local plans (referred to as the standard of review) for:

 oappeals of an approval authority’s decision or non-decision with respect to an OPA or ZBA, where a complete application is submitted after December 12;

 oappeals of municipally-initiated Official Plans and OPAs adopted after December 12 and municipally-initiated zoning by-laws and ZBAs passed after December 12;

 •extended timelines for municipalities to make decisions for:

 oapplications for an OPA (from 180 to 210 days) and a ZBA (from 120 to 150 days), where complete applications are submitted after December 12;

 oOfficial Plans/OPAs (from 180 to 210 days) that were adopted after December 12.

  We question whether there is an opportunity for the Province to amend the timelines with respect to appeal provisions so as to minimize the likelihood of parties appealing their current proposals simply to maintain their rights to OMB – led hearings as opposed to the LPAT process.  We do not want to encourage appeals that remove proposals from the normal public and agency review process, simply to protect appeal processes under the previous legislation.

  LPAT Procedures and Practices

  A number of regulations are proposed to shorten hearing length by establishing maximum timelines for proceedings, limiting the length of oral submissions and restricting cross examination of witnesses. Staff support regulations that will result in more efficient case management administration and timely decision making, however the proposed regulations raise a number of questions and in some cases may not be well-designed to achieve these goals. The timeline is proposed to commence on the date that an appeal has been “validated”, but the regulations are unclear as to what constitutes validation, and whether it includes the Tribunal’s assessment of the merits of the arguments in favour of the three criteria for appeal, the mandatory case management conference. Staff recommend that the Province prescribe a more detailed process for how cases will be assessed under the new standards of review, and the timelines associated with that process. The regulations do not make it clear why plans of subdivision and s. 17(40) Planning Act appeals will adhere to a lengthier timeline than s. 17 (24) and (36) Planning Act appeals. Furthermore, the regulations do not indicate whether there will be consequences for failing to adhere to the prescribed timelines

  Given that the vast majority of proceedings are resolved in fewer than 20 days, the new timelines for hearing length are expected to have limited impact on most appeals. To address delays that arise throughout the entire appeal process, specific timelines should be set for the period of time between submission of an appeal and the scheduling of the first hearing, and the time between completion of a hearing to the notice of a decision. For appeals relating to minor variances and consents, which in 2015/2016 comprised almost half (48%) of the total appeals, the proposed timeline of 6 months for the LPAT hearing appears to be excessive and will do little to address the delay in scheduling first hearings and timely decisions following the hearing. Timelines for more complex appeals, such those involving OPA and ZBAs are a 30%-40% longer than the mandatory timelines provided to municipal councils and approval authorities for a decision. The Province is encouraged to consider timelines that align more closely with those required of municipal councils and approval authorities, considering that appeals should be scoped.  The Province should also make it clear as to the timelines for the LPAT member to come to a decision after a hearing.

  

 Oral Hearings

  Bill 139 generally restricts submissions at oral hearings relating to Official Plans to those who have been identified as parties in the appeal. Oral submissions for parties will be restricted to 75 minutes.

 Additional participants may be permitted in an oral hearing for appeals of non-decisions on a draft plans of subdivision and s. 17(40) Planning Act appeals. These participants will each be permitted a maximum of 25 minutes for oral submissions. It is not clear why additional participants are permitted for these types of appeals but not for other appeals.

  Increased time limits may be permitted at the discretion of the Tribunal where, in the opinion of the Tribunal, it is necessary for a fair and just determination of the appeal.  City staff question whether 75 minutes per party, particularly for more complex appeals, will generally be sufficient.

[Original Comment ID: 212099]