JAN 31, 2022

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL - UPDATE

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Jindal Developments Ltd.

Subject: Application amend Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 – Refusal of Application by City of Brampton

Existing Zoning: Commercial Two – Special Section 1851 (C2-1851)

Proposed Zoning: R4A(3)-2569 – Residential Apartment A(3)

Purpose: To permit apartment building and stacked townhouses

Property Address/ 1965-1975 Cottrelle Boulevard

Municipality: City of Brampton

Municipality File No.: C08E08.008

OLT Case No.: PL210289

OLT Case Name: Jindal Developments Ltd. Brampton (City)

HEARING WORK PLAN

1. A Hearing of the above-noted matters has been scheduled by the Ontario Land Tribunal over six (6) days beginning on Monday, February 14, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. by Videoconference.

2. The Tribunal will not be sitting on February 21.

3. Pursuant to Attachment 3 of the Tribunal’s Procedural Order, the following is the intended order of evidence to be presented at the Hearing, which order may be adjusted as the Hearing Plan is refined on consent of the Parties or by Order of the Tribunal.

1. Jindal Developments Ltd.

2. Cynthia Sri Pragash

3. City of Brampton

 

NOV 4, 2021

Good day everyone, As a family of BramptonMatters we would like to say Thank you for your continued support. We have been working so hard to fight this project for the past 4 years or so. City of Brampton has refused the application few months back, now the developer has put in his application at the Ontario Land Tribunal. Due to developers decision to take this route we are forced to fight back.

We are on the urge of hiring a council for the residents. We have stared our fundraising, we need the funds asap for the retainer of the lawyer. Funds can be e-transfer to bramptonmatters@outlook.com - PASSWORD - Brampton. We are in crucial time, this is a time sensitive matter. As a community we are asking for generous donations from all of you to fight a good cause.

If you have any question feel free to contact us at bramptonmatters@outlook.com

Thank you kindly,

BramptonMatters Family.

Lets unite as one to fight for our rights in our own backyard ...

Time Line for Ontario Land Tribunal

Minutes from Ontario Land Tribunal

ISSUE DATE: November 02, 2021 CASE NO(S).: PL210289
2 PL210289

APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel/Representative*

Jindal Developments Ltd. Matthew Hodgson
City of Brampton Steven O'Melia
BramptonMatters Cynthia Sri Pragash

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION

[1] This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) respecting an appeal by Jindal Developments Ltd. (the “Appellant/Applicant”) following the decision of the City of Brampton (“City”) to refuse its Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit the development of the lands located at 1965-1975 Cottrelle Boulevard with a stepped seven-story condominium apartment building with 72 residential units, two-blocks of stacked residential townhouses containing a total of 24 units, and a single two-story office building intended to facilitate the headquarters of the property owner's company.

[2] City staff recommended approval of the application.

[3] There is significant public opposition against it.

SERVICE OF NOTICE OF CMC

[4] There was no issue with service of the Notice of this CMC, and so no further notice is required. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service, which was marked as Exhibit 1. 3 PL210289

REQUESTS FOR STATUS - (BramptonMatters Inc. Incorporated as of Oct 19, 2021)

[5] The following persons attended the CMC seeking party status:
• Cynthia Sri Pragash (on behalf of the unincorporated citizens group
“BramptonMatters”) • Azad Goyat • Rupinder and Jasbeer Kharbanda
• Nisha Sandu • Toni Moracci (BramptonMatters Inc. Incorporated as of Oct 19, 2021)

[6] Ms. Sri Pragash introduced herself as the spokesperson for a citizens’ group called BramptonMatters. Asked if the group was incorporated, she confirmed that it was not, but promised that it will be shortly. (BramptonMatters Inc. Incorporated as of Oct 19, 2021)

[7] Ms. Sri Pragash explained that BramptonMatters is primarily concerned about the proposed development’s negative impact on the area’s capacity to serve the commercial needs of the surrounding community, due to the application purporting to change commercial zoning of the lands to residential. She stated that the area is already deficient in walkable commercial areas to serve the local community and to provide associated employment. She also expressed opposition to the proposed density of the development, plus traffic concerns.

[8] Counsel for the Appellant/Applicant was not entirely opposed to Ms. Sri Pragash being granted party status on behalf of BramptonMatters, but he expressed some concern about the group’s ability to contribute to the proceedings. He also noted that the group’s concerns about diminished commercial lands in the area is already listed in the draft Issues List that the parties had jointly submitted to the Tribunal for the purpose of the
CMC. 4 PL210289

[9] Counsel for the City was generally supportive of granting the group party status.

[10] Ms. Sri Pragash assured the Tribunal that the group’s involvement in the proceedings would be beneficial, she would work and cooperate with counsel of the main parties to define the issues, and she would need only half a day to provide any evidence that the group might choose to present. She also confirmed that the existing issues listed on the parties’ draft Issues List, pertaining to concerns about diminished commercial
space, probably covers their main concerns.

[11] Given these submissions, the Tribunal finds it appropriate to grant party status to Cynthia Sri Pragash as an individual. The citizens group BramptonMatters has no status as an unincorporated entity. (BramptonMatters Inc. Incorporated as of Oct 19, 2021)

[12] The Tribunal notes that, at the discretion of the member(s) hearing this matter, Ms. Sri Pragash may be substituted with the group BramptonMatters as a party to these proceedings if the group becomes an incorporated group before the hearing. To be clear, such a substitution would be dependent upon Ms. Sri Pragash’s consent and the discretion of the member hearing the matter. The Tribunal notes, at the same time, that there is nothing to prevent Ms. Sri Pragash from working with BramptonMatters (as an incorporated or unincorporated group) to present a unified case, keeping in mind that only Ms. Sri Pragash has actual status as a party at this time.

[13] Azad Goyat also sought party status. He explained that he also represents a group of residents, but that he is also working with Ms. Sri Pragash and her group, BramptonMatters. Mr. Goyat explained his interests in the matter, which effectively mirrored that of BramptonMatters, as explained by Ms. Sri Pragash. He confirmed that he would be willing to work with Ms. Sri Pragash and BramptonMatters to present a unified case, and Ms. Sri Pragash confirmed that she would similarly be willing to work with him.

[14] As a result of Mr. Goyat’s shared interests in the issues of this matter with Ms. Sri Pragash, his ongoing work with Ms. Sri Pragash and BramptonMatters, and their interest in 5 PL210289 working with him, the Tribunal finds that it would not assist the Tribunal to also grant Mr.Goyat party status. To do so would be redundant from an evidence and issues standpoint, especially since they are willing to work together and are already working together.

[15] The Tribunal notes that, upon it informing Mr. Goyat of its decision to deny him party status, he requested participant status. On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted him participant status.

[16] Rupinder and Jasbeer Kharbanda, and Nisha Sandu all confirmed that they are part of the group BramptonMatters and are working with Ms. Sri Pragash. As a result of Ms. Sri Pragash being granted party status, they all withdrew their request for party status.

[17] Toni Moracci ultimately sought participant status, rather than party status. He explained that he lives in the area and is handicapped. He explained that he is interested in the matter because he is also concerned about losing commercially zoned lands in the area which might otherwise provide accessible commercial services to him.

[18] Before he confirmed his request for participant status, Mr. Moracci asked the Tribunal if his status as a participant would impact on his ability to be called as a witness. The Tribunal put this concern to the parties, who all agreed that it should not be an issue. The Tribunal agreed and confirmed that Mr. Moracci could provide a participant statement and also testify as a witness, if he is so called by one of the parties.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

[19] The Tribunal explored the possibility of mediation and settlement with the parties. While all of the parties expressed openness to the idea, they all also agreed that this case is probably not a great candidate for mediation due to the parties’ opposing views and little room for compromise. 6 PL210289

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

[20] The Tribunal received and reviewed a draft issues list prepared by the Appellant/Applicant and City prior to the CMC. The Tribunal notes that the list states potential issues in a proper form, albeit without the input of the new party, Ms. Sri Pragash. As stated above, Ms. Sri Pragash reviewed some of it at the hearing, but has not had a chance to review all of it. She also expressed interest in retaining counsel, who would presumably wish to review it in order to provide advice to his or her client.

[21] As a result, the Tribunal ordered the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) within 30 days, which is appended to this Decision as Attachment 1. The Tribunal finds the draft PO acceptable, and the proceedings shall accordingly be governed by it. HEARING

[22] Upon request of the parties, the Tribunal set a six-day hearing commencing on Monday, February 14, 2022 at 10 a.m. by VH. No further Notice is required for the hearing.

[23] Parties and participants are asked to log into the VH at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/617090741
Access Code: 617 090 741

[24] Parties and participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available:https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

[25] Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into 7 PL210289 an audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free): 1 888 455 1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The Access Code is as indicated above.

[26] Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the VH to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case. ORDER

[27] The Tribunal Orders that:

1. The date and particulars of the hearing are set out above;

2. The Procedural Order appended as Attachment 1 shall govern the
proceedings;

3. Cynthia Sri Pragash is granted party status. The Tribunal notes that, at the discretion of the member(s) hearing this matter, Ms. Sri Pragash may be substituted with the incorporated body, BramptonMatters, as a party to these proceedings;

4. Azad Goyat and Toni Moracci are granted participant status. Mr. Moracci may provide a participant statement and also testify as a witness, if he is so called by one of the parties; and 8 PL210289

5. The Member is not seized but may be spoken to through the Case
Coordinator if any issues arise. “K.R. Andrews” K.R. ANDREWS
MEMBER Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. 9 PL210289

ATTACHMENT 1

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER

subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Jindal Developments Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Refusal of request by City
of Brampton Existing Designation: Residential and Neighborhood Retail
Proposed Designated: High Density Cluster Residential
Purpose: To permit residential and commercial development
Property Address/Description: 1965-1975 Cottrelle Boulevard
Municipality: City of Brampton Approval Authority File No.: C08E08.008
OLT Case No.: PL210289
OLT File No.: PL210289
OLT Case Name: Jindal Developments Ltd. v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Jindal Developments Ltd.
Subject: Application amend Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 - Refusal of
Application by City of Brampton
Existing Zoning: Commercial Two - Special Section 1851 (C2-1851 )
Proposed Zoning: R4A(3)-2569 - Residential Apartment A(3)
Purpose: To permit apartment building and stacked townhouses
Property Address/Description: 1965-1975 Cottrelle Boulevard
Municipality: City of Brampton
Municipality File No.: C08E08.008
OLT Case No.: PL210289
OLT File No: PL210290
OLT Case Name: Jindal Developments Ltd. v. Brampton (City)

(DRAFT) PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion. Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on February 14, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. in accordance with direction to be provided by the Tribunal. 10 PL210289

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 6 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website. Requirements Before the Hearing

8. The parties shall provide the issues they want included on the Issues List on or before –November 5, 2021.

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before November 12, 2021 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before January 21, 2022 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case coordinator on or before January 31, 2022.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

12. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s 11 PL210289 evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.

13. On or before December 15, 2021, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before December 29, 2021, the parties may provide to the other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

15. On or before January 7, 2022, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before January 31, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before February 4, 2022.

18. Any documents filed in advance which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case coordinator, on or before February 11, 2022. Additional cross-examination documents identified after that date will be provided in the same manner as soon as practicable prior to the cross-examination of the witness in question, if possible, it being recognized that given the nature of cross-examination some documents that are relevant to cross-examination may only be identified or become apparent during the course of a witness’s testimony.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal.

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before January 31, 2022 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated 12 PL210289 length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and reexamination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy if requested by the Tribunal caseworker. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

23. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests. This Member is not seized. So orders the Tribunal. 13 PL210289

SUMMARY OF DATES DATE EVENT

November 5, 2021 Parties to exchange Issues Lists.
November 12, 2021 Parties to exchange lists of witnesses (names, disciplines and
order to be called)
December 15, 2021 Witness Statements, expert reports and the written evidence of
witnesses to be exchanged
December 29, 2021 Reply Witness Statements and the reply written evidence of
witnesses (if any) to be exchanged
January 7, 2022 Participant Statements to be exchanged
January 31, 2022 Parties to exchange copies of visual evidence
January 31, 2022 Parties to file draft Hearing Plan with the Tribunal
February 4, 2022 Parties to file Joint Document Book with Tribunal
February 14, 2022 Hearing commences 14 PL210289

ATTACHMENT “1”

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS PARTIES
Party Counsel / Representative
Jindal Developments Ltd. Matthew J. Hodgson
Barriston LLP
151 Ferris Lane
Suite 202
Barrie, Ontario L4M 6C1
Email: mhodgson@barristonlaw.ca
Tel: 705.792.9200

City of Brampton Steven J. O'Melia
Miller Thomson LLP
Accelerator Centre
295 Hagey Blvd Suite 300
Waterloo, ON N2L 6R5
Email: somelia@millerthomson.com
Tel: 519.593.3289

BramptonMatters Inc. Cynthia Sri Pragash
Email:bramptonmatters@outlook.com

PARTICIPANTS
Participant Email
Azad Goyat metro_metroinsurance@yahoo.ca
Tony Moracci ucalltony@aol.com

***********************************************************************************************

WE THE UNDERSINGED RESIDENTS OF COTTRELLE & MC VEAN AREA DO NOT SUPPORT THE ERECTION OF A HIGH-RISE BUILDING ON CASTLEMORE, BRAMPTON 

CITY FILE: C08E08.008

JINDAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD. & GFORCE PLANNERS

1965-1975-1985 COTTRELLE BLVD, BRAMPTON

COTTRELLE BLVD & MC VEAN DR (SCOTIA BANK PLAZA)

ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO THE CITY: Commercial single floors as the original plan permitted.

1st proposed amendment - 3 Story mixed use of building consisting of ground floor commercial units and 76 apartment dwelling units.

NEW PROPOSAL: 2nd proposed amendment - 7 STOREY APARTMENTS WITH 72 RESIDENTAL UNITS, 2 TOWNHOUSE BLOCKS WITH 12 TOTAL HOMES AND 1 COMMERCIAL UNIT TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING

1965-1975 Cottrelle Boulevard with a stepped seven-story condominium apartment building with 72 residential units, two-blocks of stacked residential townhouses containing a total of 24 units, and a single two-story office building intended to facilitate the headquarters of the property owner's company. (updated info)

As a community we have provided the City of Brampton with over 250-300 signatures obtained from the neighborhood residents opposing the above stated project.

The City of Brampton have disregarded the many residents’ concerns and has granted 3 floors project to 7 floors project.  This news shocks the neighborhood as a whole and we demand answers to our raised queries.

PETITION

We, the undersigned residents of the City of Brampton, do hereby petition the following:

STOP!!! The Zoning By-Law permit of a 7-story apartment building with 72 residential units, 2 townhomes blocks with 12 total townhomes units.

This is to be developed at Cottrelle Boulevard and Mc Vean Drive, municipally know as 1965-1975 Cottrelle Boulevard by the owner, JINDAL DEVELOPMENTS LTD and GForce Planners. FILE: C08E08.008

The development of this 7-storey structure affects the neighbourhood in the following ways:

• Privacy of nearby homes 
• Drops the value of our homes
• Increases security and safety issues around our neighbourhood
• Causes more traffic and congestion (already too many accidents on Cottrelle)
• Affects our school (schools are already using portables)
• Affects our parks (parks are overcrowded) only two small parks in the area
•  7-story 72 residential units, 2 town homes blocks with 12 total town homes units within a small area including car parking is overwhelming 

Thank You for signing this Petition, 

BramptonMatters Non Profit Organization