The City of Hamilton says it made a mistake when it invoiced Valery Group a $650,000 parkland cash-in-lieu charge in September 2023. It says the correct charge should be $1,908,000 and expects Valery to pay the $1,258,000 difference.
Valery Group says the original $650,000 it paid is correct and is challenging the City at the Ontario Land Tribunal, saying Bill 23 imposed a cap on parkland dedication fees for developments on lands of five hectares or less.
On Thursday, lawyers for the City and Valery squared off.
The City said fees should be charged based on the date of past demolitions, while Valery argued that this is “asinine” and that the charge should be based on the date developers apply to construct new buildings.
Bill 23 invalidated municipal parkland development charges and imposed a new parkland dedication fee cap at ten percent of the property value on the date of issuance of a building permit. [42(3.3)(a)]
Developments receiving a first building permit after November 28, 2022, can only be charged up to the cap.
In recent decades, Valery slowly assembled the lands on the southeast corner at Stone Church Road West. During the assembly, Valery applied for and received demolition permits to remove previous homes on the land.
In September 2023, following the 2022 OLT approval of the new development, Valery filed for building permits to begin constructing a nine-storey 216-unit rental building at 1021 West 5th Street.
The City issued a parkland dedication fee invoice for $650,000, which was paid within days on October 11. The final permits were issued on November 29.
City Says It Made A $1.258-Million Mistake
A few months later, the City of Hamilton issued a new invoice of $1,908,000, saying that demolition permits issued in previous years were building permits “in respect of the development or redevelopment.”
Therefore, because the first demolition permit was issued in 2013, the City can charge pre-Bill 23 fees.
“The City is inhaling and exhaling at the same time,” argued Valery’s lawyer Russell Cheeseman, saying the City is trying to have it both ways.
He argued that if the City wants to charge pre-Bill 23 fees, it should be required to calculate property value using the 2013 valuation, the date the first demolition permit was issued on the lands.
Cheeseman argued that allowing municipalities to backdate parkland dedication charges to years, even decades, before new development construction is asinine.
“The law is not an ass, and that be an asinine decision.”
Virtually every property in Ontario was issued a demolition permit at some point. Now, they would be faced with the uncertainty of paying parkland fees based on whatever rules were in place when previous structures were demolished.
City of Hamilton lawyer Peter Krysiak argued the OLT should be consistent and a plain reading of the law requires the Tribunal to rule in the City’s favour.
Krysiak presented two OLT decisions that he said confirm that municipalities can charge pre-Bill 23 fees when a property receives a demolition permit before November 28, 2022.
Citing the OLT decision involving 71 Main Street in Dundas in early 2024, Krysiak stated that the Tribunal already decided that parkland fees should be calculated on the date the “first building permit was issued.”
The Tribunal ruled in December that demolition permits are a “first building permit” when demolition “is needed to allow for the buildings to be removed in order to be replaced by a new building.”
Therefore, Krysiak submitted, because the demolitions were required to facilitate the new development, and occurred prior to Bill 23, the City is entitled to charge the higher parkland fee.
In response, Cheeseman argued that the circumstances in this case significantly differ from the cases the City advances, and that deciding in the City’s favour would create chaos across Ontario by removing certainty from planning.
He reminded the Tribunal that past OLT decisions are not precedents and do not bind future decisions.
OLT Member Daniel Best reserved his decision, saying he will issue a written decision.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: March 29, 2025
Last updated: March 29, 2025
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version
OLT Case Number: OLT-24-000391
Geez Louise, where do we get these City Hall employees? A million $ $ “mistake”…….?? That will certainly be reflected in my $9,000 tax bill!
These idiots in city hall must be held personally responsible for major mistakes that cost the tax payers more in the long run. They are all over paid bunch of imbeciles.
They need to make an amendment to the laws. This is usury and the costs will ne pushed on the economy. I thought this bill was created to accomodate affordability.
I think Hamilton needs to look into the accountant. S rew up on that and on the tiny homes. I can’t believe that it costs roughly 50,000 for each tiny home.
The park fees should be dusted to the actual site plan as part of the actual building permit and all the other development fees which are usually handled at this time.
What’s the permit called a building permit or a demolition permit? Its a demolition permit, the city hasn’t approved any site plan or building drawings so how can they reasonably calculate fees Ona building and design that’s hasn’t been approved. Pay the fees when we’re at the point we can actually benefit from paying them. Like when we’re ready for site plan and building permit and we know we’re getting permits to build our proposal. What selfish greedy idiot thought this was a good idea? They complain about the cost of homes but keep raising the cost before you get a shovel in the ground. It’s already 30% for red tape. Its deplorable.
You are absolutely correct. Hamilton City Hall has a problem with math, accountability and transparency.
Gotta side with the developer here. Like his lawyer said, they want to change 2013 fees based on today’s valuation. Also, even if the city were correct, they gave the a developer a bill, he paid it promptly, so it’s too bad, so sad…
So the city is issuing an invoice for pre Bill 23 when the demo was done in 2013 but adjusted for current property values. Pick one but not both.
The City of Hamilton is & has been in disarray. Taxes from all towns sent to Hamilton coffers are consistently mismanaged, roads are falling apart downtown core is disintegrating. Tear down homes for a non existent LRT hasn’t helped the homeless situation. I will never live anywhere where the taxes are paid to Hamilton
This is why E&O insurance doesn’t cover cities/municipalities. They would be paying out constantly. Grrrrr…