Maynard v. Mississippi Mills (Municipality)

Maynard v. Mississippi Mills (Municipality) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2021-09-22 Neutral citation 2021 ONCA 639 Docket numbers C68881 Judges Benotto, Mary Lou; Brown, David M.; Harvison Young, Alison Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Maynard v. Mississippi Mills (Municipality), 2021 ONCA 639 DATE: 20210922 DOCKET: C68881 Benotto, Brown and Harvison Young JJ.A. BETWEEN Steve Maynard Applicant (Appellant) and The Corporation of the Municipality of Mississippi Mills Respondent (Respondent) Steve Maynard, acting in person Tony Fleming and Lisa Scheulderman, for the respondent Heard: September 9, 2021 by video conference On appeal from the order of Justice Martin S. James of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 29, 2020, with reasons at 2020 ONSC 6643. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant, Steve Maynard, appeals the application judge’s dismissal, pursuant to r. 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, of his application to quash five municipal by-laws. [2] The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) was one of the predecessor tribunals to the new Ontario Land Tribunal, which was established in June 2021: Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sch. 6. [3] Section 11(1) of the now repealed Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 23, Sch. 1, provided that the LPAT had exclusive jurisdiction in all cases and in respect of all matters in which jurisdiction was conferred on it by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 or by any other general or special Act. (A similar provision is now found in s. 8(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 regarding the consolidated Ontario Land Tribunal.) [4] The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, provides that an appeal lies to the Ontario Land Tribunal (formerly the LPAT) following a council giving written notice of the passing of a by-law: s. 34(19). Section 34(19.0.1) provides that: If the appellant intends to argue that the by-law is inconsistent with a policy statement issued under subsection 3 (1), fails to conform with or conflicts with a provincial plan or fails to conform with an applicable official plan, the notice of appeal must also explain how the by-law is inconsistent with, fails to conform with or conflicts with the other document. [5] That is precisely the basis of Mr. Maynard’s challenge to the by-laws. His notice of application alleges that the by-laws are inconsistent with provisions of Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 and fail to conform to the Mississippi Mills Community Official Plan. Given the basis upon which Mr. Maynard challenges the by-laws, we see no error in the application judge’s conclusion that it is plain and obvious that a challenge to the impugned by-laws falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LPAT (now the Ontario Land Tribunal) and, consequently, the appellant’s application could not succeed: see Country Pork Ltd. v. Ashfield (Township) (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 529 (C.A.), at para. 32. We see nothing in the case management decision of the LPAT in Grabe v. Ottawa (City), 2019 CanLII 107083 (ON LPAT) that contains any suggestion to the contrary about the jurisdiction of the LPAT, now the Ontario Land Tribunal: see, in particular, paras. 3, 6 and 13. [6] The appeal is dismissed. [7] Mr. Maynard shall pay the respondent its costs of the appeal fixed in the amount of $1,500, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. “M.L. Benotto J.A.” “David Brown J.A.” “Harvison Young J.A.”