Hamilton City Hall has won another parkland dedication fee case in its ongoing efforts to apply pre-Bill 23 parkland dedication fee rates to new development.
In a 32-paragraph decision, OLT Member W. Daniel Best sided with Hamilton’s position that the parkland dedication fee caps implemented by the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (“Bill 23”) do not apply if a demolition permit was issued before the caps were imposed, even when the demolition is necessary to facilitate new development.
The decision means the City of Hamilton will collect hundreds of thousands to millions more dollars in parkland fees than it would under the Bill 23 regime.
Parkland dedication fees are charges intended to fund parks and recreational facilities needed to serve growing populations.
Before Bill 23, these fees could be substantial—often representing 5 percent or more of a property’s value. Bill 23, which came into force on November 28, 2022, caps fees at maximum 10 percent of land value for developments on five hectares or less, and 15 percent for larger developments.
Bill 23 came into force on November 28, 2022.
Developments that received their first building permits after this date benefit from the reduced fees.
The City of Hamilton previously succeeded at the OLT in arguing that developers who received foundation permits before Bill 23 must pay full parkland fees. Now, the City has succeeded in arguing that a demolition permit—even if issued years or more than a decade before new development construction begins—means developers must pay pre-Bill 23 fees.
The cost differences are substantial.
At 71 Main Street in Dundas, the difference was $646,416 ($10,100.25 per unit) bringing the total parkland fee for this project to $836,416 ($13,069 per unit).
At 488-500 Upper Wellington Street, the difference was $1,592,016 ($6,099.68 per unit), for a total parkland fee of $2,262,016 ($8666.72 per unit).
In this latest decision at 1021 West 5th Street, the difference was $1,258,576 ($5,828 per unit), for a total parkland fee of $1,908,576 ($8,836 per unit).
The Decision
The decision hinges on interpreting the phrase “in respect of the development or redevelopment” in section 42(3.5) of the Planning Act.
The developer argued this should be narrowly interpreted to apply only to construction permits that actually build new structures. The City argued that demolition permits are building permits and that the Act states fees are calculated on the date of the first building permit.
Member Best adopted the interpretation established in the Upper Wellington case that permits need only be “in some way related to” the development to trigger the pre-Bill 23 fee regime.
Best found that because the demolitions “were required to allow for the new building to be built,” they fall within the statutory definition.
Therefore, Best concluded, because demolition permits were issued prior to November 28, 2022, “the legislative changes to parkland dedication as a result of Bill 23 do not apply.”
The ruling means that if a developer filed an official plan amendment, zoning bylaw amendment, or other Planning Act redevelopment application, and then obtained a demolition permit before Bill 23 came into effect, they will pay the higher fees.
The implications of the ruling will create uncertainty for future development projects.
City Originally Charged Bill 23 Rates, Then Decided to Add a $1.258-Million Bill
The dispute arose when the City of Hamilton realized it could charge Valery Group higher fees than what the City initially invoiced.
On October 11, 2023, Valery Group was charged $650,000 for parkland dedication fees for a 216-unit development at 1021 West 5th Street. The amount was paid in full.
However, on January 31, 2024, the City claimed it had made a “mistake” and issued a revised invoice for $1,908,576—nearly three times the original amount. The City demanded an additional $1,258,576, arguing that because demolition permits had been issued years earlier (the first on September 11, 2013), the development was subject to pre-Bill 23 fee rates.
The developer paid the additional amount under protest on April 10, 2024, and filed an appeal on April 15, 2024.
The hearing was held on March 27, 2025.
The TPR story from the March hearing can be read here.
Production Details
v. 1.0.0
Published: June 16, 2025
Last updated: June 16, 2025
Author: Joey Coleman
Update Record
v. 1.0.0 original version
OLT Case Number: OLT-24-000391