By Staff

June 3rd, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

Marion Goard is a Broker with Keller Williams Realty. She heads up an interesting service intended for the Seniors community that is setting out to help people Get the answers to your most pressing questions at monthly seminars and panels.

Are you finding yourself continually looking for facts to get answers to your most pressing questions? The Empowered Seniors Speakers Series is a free community service offered to seniors and their families.

Every month, you can attend a seminar or a panel where you’ll gain valuable and honest information regarding topics that are important to senior living and retired people. You’ll leave each event with the ability to make informed decisions, and you’ll meet experts who can provide reliable and current information.

The seminars and expert panels are a community service offered AT NO COST to seniors and their families.

Space is limited, so reservations are strongly encouraged. Click on the registration link or call 905-330-5201 to save your seat for any of the sessions.
Location:
Burlington Central Library (Centennial Hall)
2331 New St, Burlington, ON L7R 1J4
Dates and Times:
All sessions run from 1:30 PM to 3:00 PM (doors open at 1:10 PM)
on the second Wednesday of each month, with the exception of October (3rd Wednesday)
The first session will take place on June 14, 2023
1:30 PM – 3:00 PM
(doors open at 1:10 PM)

Understanding how your Will, Real Estate law and your Taxes play out on death

Do you know how and when your assets, such as your home or other properties transfer after death? In this seminar, Estate and Real Estate Lawyer Andrea Parliament will outline four methods of transferring assets on death and explain the tax implications of each.

You’ll learn about:
• Joint ownership (and that it’s not quite as simple as your banker may think)
• Designated Beneficiaries
• Secondary Wills
• What happens during probate, whether it’s always required and the tax implications
• Choosing an executor.

Register

By Pepper Parr

June 2nd, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

Speaking on the TVO program The Agenda where the subject was who should pay for growth Steve Paiken said to Mayor Marianne Meed Ward:
said:

“I’m willing to bet that there’s a huge chunk of people in your city that don’t think growth is intrinsically good that they love Burlington the way it is right now, and they’d be just very happy. Thank you very much. If there was no further growth to Burlington, what do you do with that?”

Did you just say …

Meed Ward responded:
“Well, what they’re seeing is growth in housing only without thinking about what a complete community is all about. The transit hasn’t kept up with growth. The community centers hasn’t kept up with growth, the libraries the list of things that have not responded to population growth in every city is very long.

“And so what people see is their quality of life has diminished because they’re waiting more in longer lines. They can’t get access to facilities, they go to other places because they can’t get their kids into an arena. And so what we’re doing when we accepted the housing pledge for 29,000 units by 2031, we said we’re not just building housing, and we need the province to help us with those big capital dollars for community centres for transit for parks.

The whole for Burlington, by the way, if we get rid of development charges overnight is  $36 million a year. That’s about a 20% tax increase. So you know, these are not inexpensive costs.

We just bought an old surplus school site for $100 million. we’re renovating that into a community center. These are big things that our community needs and if all the community sees is traffic congestion, can’t get my kids into programs, diminishing quality of life. They’re not going to be happy about growth. We have to make sure that we’re building complete communities,

Paiken came back with: “Did you just say you spent $100 million for an old school?”

Meed Ward quickly added that “ the $100 million was to buy and convert the former Bateman High School – but this is the first time the public has heard that number.

Mayor tells interviewer the city will spend $100 million for Bateman High school property. Councillor Stole told the public that the cost was going to be $50 million and got smacked with a five day pay fine. What does the Mayor get for blabbing away that the city will spend $100 million ? Re-elected?

When Councillor Shawna Stolte told the public that the cost was going to be $50 million she got smacked with a fine of five days’ pay because the information she shared was discussed in a closed session of Council

Releasing number on a TV show seems to be Ok.

By Ray Rivers

June 2nd, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

OPINION

I recently attended a Pollution Probe event to honour Edward Burtynsky, the Canadian born world famous photographer and artist known for his large format landscape art work. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, in 2019, received a similar honour for his environmental leadership on acid rain, Great Lakes restoration, the government’s Green Plan and initial efforts on combating climate change.

The stuff we through away has to end up somewhere.

Pollution Probe is generally considered one of the more moderate of the environment organizations. They are not typically known to protest environmental policy by climbing the CN tower or tying themselves to old growth timber and taunting chain sawing loggers. Founded by students and their professors at the University of Toronto in 1969, Probe receives broad support from industry and government as well as concerned individuals.

Probe has an enviable track record in research and bringing together various sectors to a cause. They can point to the banning of DDT; the 3 R’s recycling program; reduced nutrient loading into the Great Lakes; and contributing to the fight against acid rain. Probe is currently undertaking a plastics pollution recovery project in the Great Lakes. Mr. Burtnysky, a soft spoken environmentalist, had recently undertaken an exhibition of his work focusing on plastic pollution. It was a fitting and timely tribute.

The federal government’s commitment to ban the manufacture and importation of a number of single use plastic products, mainly plastic packaging, straws and stir sticks, is in place, though it may take some time before current stocks are depleted. And after that the government’s sights need to focus on the holy grail of plastic pollution – the PET bottle.

Pollution Probe organized a panel to discuss the plastics issue, following Mr. Burtynsky’s address. Notably, there was a representative from NOVA Chemicals on the panel. Nova, a major manufacturer of plastics, is headquartered in Calgary though ownership is offshore in the United Arab Emirates. The debate was cordial; it was clear that in this forum nobody was yet prepared to address the elephant in the room – getting rid of the plastic bottle.

Plastic water bottles

Ethylene, a hydrocarbon gas, is used to produce polyethylene, ethylene oxide, PVC, styrene, and as the name implies, (polyethylene terephthalate) PET bottles. NOVA has a lot to lose were PET bottles the next target, so they talked up their efforts at recycling as a viable solution. But they must understand that those PET bottles raise enough health and environmental questions that banning them for most applications will be the only solution.

For example we all know that you should never leave a water bottle in your car on a hot day since it could leach unsafe levels of antimony trioxide and phthalates, basic building blocks in the production of most PET bottles. And it follows that they probably contaminate what’s inside the bottle to some extent even at lower temperature, and possibly even when frozen.

There is the matter of micro plastics. According to a Penn State study municipal tap water (presumably from sources which also receive wastewater) was shown to contain something like five or six plastic particles per litre of water. But samples taken from bottled water exceeded that by at least 50 times. As the study notes, the researchers are yet unsure about the full health consequences of ingesting that amount of plastic particles; it can’t be good.

Moreover, according to the National Library of Medicine “Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled—independent of the type of resin, product, or retail source—leached chemicals having reliably detectable [Estrogen Activity] EA, including those advertised as [Bisphenol A) BPA free. BPA is prohibited for use in infant drinking bottles in Canada and the USA. In some cases, BPA-free products released chemicals having more EA than did BPA-containing products.

This type of estrogen is a concern since it mimics or antagonizes naturally occurring estrogens and can produce many biological and adverse health effects in mammals, according to the journal Environmental Health. These include “early puberty in females, reduced sperm counts, altered functions of reproductive organs, obesity, altered sex-specific behaviours, and increased rates of some breast, ovarian, testicular, and prostate cancers”. That should be scary enough to make us want to stop buying plastic bottles used for everything from water to peanut butter.

Finally there is the waste plastic matter, land filled mounds of used bottles and icebergs of plastic floating in our oceans. It is what Edward Burtynsky has captured with his magnificent photography and brought to our attention through his exhibitions.

According to Pollution Probe some 10 million kg of plastic waste enter the Great Lakes each year. Everyone agrees that we should continue recycling plastic. But we all should understand that recycling alone is not enough. It will not be until the plastic revolution is over.

Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking.  Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington.  He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject.   Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa.  Tweet @rayzrivers.   Ray Rivers has previously acted as consultant for Pollution Probe and represented the organization at an earlier Congress of the Parties (COP) climate change meeting.}

Background links:

Probe Gala –

Burtynsky –

NOVA Chemicals –

PET –

Pollution Probe Great Lakes Plastic Clean Up –

Federal Plastic Regulation –

Burtynsky Plastic Pollution –

Estrogen Activity

EA Effects –

By Melinda Smith

May 31st, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

You can be playing the same game with the person sitting beside you – then compare how you each did.

There’s no denying the fact that mobile gaming has surged in popularity over recent years. No matter where you go, you’ll see someone tapping away on their smartphone, trying to defeat an enemy or solve a puzzle. From casual games to complex titles, for many, their phone is their primary source of entertainment.

Game developers have taken note and prioritized releasing games for mobile devices. The titles deliver immersive experiences that were once only possible on a PC or console. Still, that doesn’t explain why mobile gaming is so popular. Keep reading to learn some of the reasons behind the growing trend.

Huge Catalog of Games
One of the biggest reasons why mobile games are so popular is the wide variety of titles available. For example, casino games are some of the most frequently played in the world. People no longer have to organize friends for games nights or travel long distances to play at a brick-and-mortar facility. Instead, technological advances have made it possible for websites like PokerStars Casino to offer all sorts of fun titles that can be played from home. 3 Secret Cities, Ashoka, and Book of Captain Silver, for example, are just a few of the slots titles players can choose from to keep themselves entertained.

Similarly, if battle royale games are more their style, then they only a few taps away from playing games like Fortnite and Apex Legends on their mobile devices. Every video game genre is available for mobile devices, and technological advances have made many of the top games just as fun to play on smartphones and tablets as on consoles and PCs. From puzzles to platformers, there’s something for everyone.

You take the game you want to play with you. This mobility has made mobile  gaming the most popular form of entertainment for millions of people.

On the Go Gaming
Once upon a time, if you wanted to play a video game with decent graphics and sound, you had to do it at home with a console plugged into your TV or PC. Saying a lot has changed over the past couple of decades would be an understatement.

Today, you can take your games with you wherever you go, which is one of the biggest drivers behind mobile gaming’s popularity. If you’re planning a trip, your cellphone is one of the technological devices you won’t leave home without.

There’s no need to make room in your suitcase for your PlayStation 5 or carry your laptop when you can play great games on your phone. Mobile gaming gives people access to entertainment wherever they go, 24/7, and that’s one of its biggest draws.

Cost
When you compare mobile games to PC and console games, the price of entry is extremely low. Thanks to the freemium model, you may not have to pay anything to play. If you have a cellphone, you can download one of the top titles for Android from the Google Play Store or browse Apple’s App Store for iPhone games. Once downloaded, you start playing immediately.

Even if you decide to pay for a top-quality mobile game, you probably won’t spend more than a few dollars on it. On the other hand, the latest titles for consoles and PCs could set you back more than $60. Moreover, mobile gaming doesn’t require players to invest in expensive hardware, saving you even more money. Technology is constantly improving, and we’re getting to the point where almost any game can be played on a smartphone.

Multiplayer Gaming
Gaming was a solitary hobby in its early days. The only way to experience multiplayer fun was to invite friends or family over to your home to play with your extra joysticks. The internet made massively online multiplayer games popular, with many gamers preferring to play in groups instead of completing a campaign on their own.

Mobile gaming has taken this to the next level, allowing people to connect with others from around the world on their phones. Many look for games with a social factor, preferring to compete against others and climb leaderboards.

Whether you play Candy Crush Saga or Fortnite on your mobile device, you’re in for a social experience.

By Pepper Parr

May 30^th, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

Nancy Shea Nicol: Burlington Corporate Counsel, has rarely been in favour of making legal matters public.

They are getting better at doing their jobs.

For the longest time Council has gone into a CLOSED session and saying precious little about what they are going to talk about.

Pressure from ward 2 Councillor Lisa Kearns and others appears to have brought about the needed change.

Later this week Council will go into a CLOSED session to talk about:

Confidential legal services department report regarding a litigation matter for 720, 735, 740 Oval Court (L-33-23)

Pursuant to Section 239(2)(e) of the Municipal Act, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board.

Progress!

This is the development that has their attention.  It is a whopper of a development.

Is Burlington ready for this kind of concentration and height.  Beginning to look like Mississauga ,

One could bet the mortgage payment that most people know that developments like this are going to be built in Burlington.

By Pepper Parr

May 30th, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

In January of this year Goodmans LLP, legal counsel for Burlington 2020 Lakeshore Inc., wrote the Ontario Land Tribunal asking for a review of a decision they had made relating to the Waterfront Hotel site.

The owners, Vrancorp, filed an application to develop the site. The city refused the application as incomplete.

The Vrancorp people appealed the city decision to the OLT.

The OLT found for the city.

That resulted in a request that the decision be reviewed.

To cut to the chase on this. The Tribunal dismissed the request for a review of the decision.

Why was it dismissed and what was legal counsel for Vrancorp expecting ?

This is important for the simple reason that this is the first time the city has won a major case at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

Vrancorp blew it when their planning consultant failed to get all the required documents in on time.

During the time between when the development application was first filed and when the last of the required documents was received the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) issued a statement approving the Regional Official Plan which included the location of the Urban Growth Centre.

Those boundaries were moved further north to include the Burlington GO station property.  The Urban Growth Centre boundaries change was effective immediately.

That decision meant the Waterfront Hotel site was no longer within the UGC boundary.

An application to develop is not complete until all the documents have been received and the fees that are due paid.

There were a few documents that had not been submitted. The city refused the application as not being complete.

Unfortunately for Vrancorp, the MMAH statement meant the Waterfront Hotel location was outside the boundary.

The timing issue is well explained by the OLT when they released their response to a request for a review.

Through the Applications, the Requestor (Goodmans – counsel for the developer) seeks amendments allowing the construction of a new two-tower mixed-used building with maximum tower heights of 35 and 30 storeys and a 6-storey podium at the subject property. The property currently contains a six-storey hotel with restaurant and associated surface parking lot. Prior to the Minister’s decision, the property was within the Downtown Burlington UGC.

The Requestor submitted initial materials to the City in support of its Applications on October 22, 2021 before the date of the Minister’s decision, but failed to include all materials identified in the pre-consultation checklist.

The Requestor then submitted its fees on October 26, 2021. The City subsequently notified the Requestor, on November 23, 2021, that the Applications had been deemed incomplete on the basis that not all the information and materials required by the Planning Act and the Burlington OP had been submitted.

The Requestor then filed the additional information and materials on December 17, 2021 after the date of the Minister’s decision. City Council, at its meeting of January 18, 2022, deemed the Applications complete as of December 17.

A document called a “Disposition” letter contains the following:
Having reviewed the Decision, as well as the record before the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal clearly and carefully considered the evidence and submissions of all parties before making a determination as to the correct interpretation of Policy 80.3. The Tribunal provides lengthy reasons, addressing the key points of law and chronology of events raised by the City and Requestor, and ultimately agreeing with the City’s position. At paragraph 50 of the Decision, the Tribunal finds:

The hotel is going to be around for some time.

The Tribunal concurs with the City’s interpretation of the complete application requirements in the Planning Act which underscores the critical nature of the moment in time that a complete application is received. The Tribunal agrees that until an application is complete the Municipality will not have sufficient information to make an informed decision. Before that moment, the application is neither complete, made, nor received.

The Tribunal addresses the meaning of the word “made”, within the context of Policy 80.3, throughout numerous additional references throughout the Decision, including at paragraph 24:
The City submitted that “received” and “made” are different words and that it is impossible for an application to be “made” before it is “received” by a Municipality. The City states an applicant cannot “made” an application until the Municipality “receives” the materials in support of the application.

The interpretation of an official plan is not a factual matter to be decided based on opinion evidence from planners, but rather a question of law. It is the Tribunal’s duty to interpret an official plan in any case before it.

The Tribunal is not bound to accept the evidence of any of the planning experts who appear before it and may come to its own conclusions as to how an official plan is to be interpreted.

The Tribunal simply preferred the position of the City and made a determination as to the interpretation of an official plan, as is within its authority.

The hearing is meant to be a final determination of a matter, subject to the rights of review. A request for review is not an opportunity to rehear the evidence or to relitigate the matter. I see no merits to the claims that the Tribunal made errors of law in interpreting the ROP and Planning Act. Accordingly, these grounds of the Request are dismissed.

I note that the Requestor brought a motion to the Tribunal with respect to this matter as early as December 22, 2021. Had the Requestor employed similar urgency with respect to the MFIPPA (Freedom of Information) request, it may be that the records would have been available to the Requestor in advance of the November 2022 hearing. Nevertheless, I have carefully reviewed the records and have concluded that they would not have affected the outcome of the decision.

None of the records proffered appear to address when an application is “made” (i.e., the question which was before the Tribunal), but instead, in some instances, describe the application process (which is well-known and was before the Tribunal) and, in other instances, refer to some individuals’ opinion or belief as to whether Policy 80.3 applied to the subject property.

As noted by the Requestor, the City (and other parties of like interest) did not submit any opinion evidence with respect to the interpretation of the ROP and, as a result, the Tribunal did not rely on the opinion of City staff or experts in making its Decision. The proffered records can be of little consequence, given that there was no opinion evidence to be contradicted or impeached. The Requestor has failed to demonstrate how this information “call[s] into question the City’s submissions”, which were based on the factual record and law, or how the information would have affected the final decision.

Ultimately, it is the Tribunal’s duty to interpret the official plan in any matter. The Tribunal did so here, after carefully considering the submissions of the Requestor and other parties. I do not believe the information outlined in the Request meets the standard of new information which could have affected the result of this decision under Rule 25.7(e), and I, therefore, dismiss this ground of the Request.

For the reasons above, I find that the Request fails to raise a compelling and convincing case that one of the grounds enumerated under Rule 25 is present in the Decision.

The Request for a review was dismissed.

The Decision OLT-22-003866 remains in full force and effect.

What happens next? The ball is in the Vrancorp’s hands.

Will they file a new application?

The Plan B people had something to say about this.

Related news story:

OLT dismisses Waterfront Hotel review request.

By Pepper Parr

May 29^th, 2023

BURLINGTON, ON

The federal government pumped $300,000 into the tourism sector with the money being delivered through the Tourism Relief Fund.

Two organizations in Burlington were on the receiving end

An additional $5 million was provided to Regional Tourism Organization 3 (RTO3) to support businesses which included this region.

No word yet on what those two organizations will do with the funds received.