A west end developer continues to push for a nearly $150,000 reimbursement from the city, with interest, claiming it was charged too much for its Paisley Road project.
Following a reimbursement rejection decision from city council in February, Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. filed an appeal with the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) regarding development charges (DCs) collected for the third of four planned buildings at 1098 Paisley Rd.
In its appeal filing with the OLT, the developer calls for council’s February decision to be overturned. The developer continues to insist it should have been charged a lower rate for some of its units, resulting in $143,080 in overpayment to the city.
“In the case of the overpayment, the city was holding the funds and was collecting interest on them,” the appeal notice states. “The corollary is the appellant’s lost opportunity to earn interest on the overpayment while it remained with the city.”
The dispute centres around what the developer argued was a $143,080 over payment of development charges (DCs) for its residential buildings at 1098 Paisley Rd. – which stretches between Elmira and Whitelaw roads.
Paisley & Whitelaw Inc. signed a pre-payment agreement with the city regarding the first phase of the development and provided more than $4 million in DCs.
In exchange, the developer locked in 2019 development charge rates for the first two of four planned buildings, council heard during the February appeal.
However, the number of units and bedrooms in those first two buildings was decreased, meaning the full amount of pre-paid DCs wasn’t used and some funds remained with the city.
That’s not in dispute.
The disagreement comes from an email exchange between the developer and a finance department staff member.
As explained in February by Jennifer Meader, lawyer for Paisley & Whitelaw Inc., the exchange left the developer believing the 2019 DCs rate would be applied to a portion of the third building. However, the leftover funds were simply put against the amount owing based on the 2023 rate.
City lawyer Allison Thornton told council that may be the case, but it would be up to council to approve an extension of that pre-pay agreement.
There’s nothing in the email exchange that specifically states the developer’s request or the staff member’s agreement that the lower rates would be applied.
Meader argued the developer’s implication is clear. Thornton argued it’s not, but the staffer didn’t have authority to approve such a request anyway.
