[Halifax] 5900 Inglis | ? m | 30 & 24 fl | Cancelled

[Colin May]

Apparently Ms Rubin told AllNS that the agreement had ended. I am not a subscriber.
Is the desire to continue a prelude to further legal action by Ashcroft ?

November 21 letter from Patterson Law to NSUARB

" We write in response to Ms. McLaurin's and Mr. Townsend's respective letters of
November 17, 2016 and November 18, 2016.
We are aware that the subject Purchase and Sale Agreement has been terminated. Nothing has been received from the Appellant directly. My Friend's written summation is curiously silent on the issue. Notwithstanding, confirmation provided by Ms. Rubin in an interview with AllNovascotia.ca, leads us to assume that there is no dispute as to the current situation. .................. While we appreciate the views offered by Saint Mary's University and the Municipality, an
opportunity to address the issue of mootness is, in our view, unnecessary. Instead, we
would simply ask for confirmation that an Appeal Decision will not be made as factual
developments have rendered all substantive issues before the Board, moot.
There is no mechanism to compensate for the foreseeably unnecessary costs of preparing detailed final submissions on the Appeal proper. Accordingly, we would kindly ask for confirmation that our client can "stand down".

November 22 correspondence from NSUARB to all parties :

" The Board has reviewed the correspondence of Ms. MacLaurin, dated November 17, 2016, and of Mr. Townsend, dated November 18, 2016, as well as the letters of Mr. Scott and Ms. Rubin filed November 21, 2016.
Based on media reports that the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Halifax was placing its Canadian Martyrs Church property back on to the market, Ms. MacLaurin and Mr. Townsend asked Ms. Rubin to confirm whether the Appellant Ashcroft’s Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Halifax, respecting the subject Inglis Street property, had terminated.
Mr. Scott asked for confirmation from the Board “that an Appeal Decision will not be made as factual developments have rendered all substantive issues before the Board moot.”
In her letter, Ms. Rubin provided a copy of an email from Deacon Daley dated November 18, 2016, confirming that the “development permit application was filed with the consent of the [Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation] and that consent has not been withdrawn. The appeal of the refusal of the permit by Ashcroft is with the consent of the owner.” Ms. Rubin stated:
All queries have been with respect to Ashcroft’s “ownership interest” in the property. This, it is submitted, misdirects the enquiry as the sale of the land is a private matter as between the owner and the developer. Indeed, what is required in submitting a permit application to HRM is that it is done by the owner or with the consent of the owner. The evidence before the Board was that thea pplication was made with the consent ofthe owner. That consent has not been withdrawn. The appeal continues to be pursued with the consent of the owner, the Roman Catholic
Episcopal Corporation. I attach an email from Deacon Dan Daley, confirming these facts.
Ashcroft respectfully submits that the Board’s jurisdiction is with respect to the correctness of the Development Officer's decision'

Preliminary hearings
11 (1) In any appeal or application, the Board may, on its own initiative or at the request
of any party, hold a preliminary hearing to deal with any matter that may aid in the
disposition of the hearing, including to:
(a) consider any preliminary motion for an order dismissing the appeal or
application on the grounds that the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal or
application, that an appellant is not an aggrieved person, that a Notice of Appeal was filed
too late, or for other reasons that may appear:
(3) Following the preliminary hearing, the Board may make an order giving such
directions as the Board deems advisable.
(4) The Board member who presides at a preliminary hearing shall not be deemed
to be seized ofthe appeal or application, and any subsequent hearing related to the appeal
or application may be heard by that member or any other member.
(5) Where a party intends to request dismissal of an appeal or application pursuant
to subsection (11(a) herein, the party shall seek a preliminary hearing to deal with the issue.
(6) Where a party requests a preliminary hearing to seek an order, including an order
relating to subsection (1)(a), and intends to present written or visual evidence at that
preliminary hearing in support of the granting of that order, the party shall provide a copy
of such evidence to any other party and to the Board, not less than five business days
before the preliminary hearing. Any other party, who intends to present written or visual
evidence at the preliminary hearing, shall provide a copy of such evidence to all other
parties, and to the Board, not less than one business day prior to the preliminary hearing.
[Emphasis added]
As noted above, Rule 11(5) provides that where a party intends to request dismissal of an appeal
pursuant to subsection (1 )(a), the party shall seek a preliminary hearing to deal with the issue.
The Board is prepared to treat Mr. Scott’s letter as containing a motion to dismiss the appeal on
the grounds the appeal is moot. The Board also considers that the preliminary hearing can
proceed by way of a paper hearing, subject to the Board or any party requesting that it be conducted in person.


As noted above, Rule 11(5) provides that where a party intends to request dismissal of an appeal pursuant to subsection (1 )(a), the party shall seek a preliminary hearing to deal with the issue. The Board is prepared to treat Mr. Scott’s letter as containing a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds the appeal is moot. The Board also considers that the preliminary hearing can proceed by way of a paper hearing, subject to the Board or any party requesting that it be conducted in person.
Accordingly, any party supporting the motion to dismiss the appeal should file written submissions with the Board, as well as any written or visual evidence in support of that motion, no later than Monday, November 28, 2016. The Appellant Ashcroft and any other party opposing the motion may then file written submissions, and written or visual evidence, no later than Monday, December 5, 2016. A rebuttal opportunity will then be provided to those seeking to dismiss the appeal, such submissions and evidence to be filed by Friday, December 9, 2016.

[Colin May]

HRM has been granted an extension : " The Board grants Ms. McLaurin’s request for an extension to December 21, 2016, to file her rebuttal submissions, if any. The deadline for the rebuttal submissions of the Intervenors remains as December 9, 2016."

[IanWatson]

St. Mary's University is the new buyer for this property. I guess that means the towers are officially not happening? Though we'll see if the UARB hearing continues...

[JustinHiscock]

Originally Posted by IanWatson

St. Mary's University is the new buyer for this property. I guess that means the towers are officially not happening? Though we'll see if the UARB hearing continues...

Isn't the proposal for student towers? Could that still happen now that SMU's purchased the property? Sorry for ignorance, have been out of the city for a year so I'm out-of-the-loop on a lot of this.

[IanWatson]

True, I suppose SMU could also build those towers. I'm not sure they'd be as bold as a private developer though.

Also, apparently Ashcroft is looking into enforcing the purchase-and-sale agreement. I.e. they're hoping to get a legal decision that says the church has to sell to them.

[Colin May]

Rubin letter December 5 to UARB :

" Park to Park Community Association (“Park to Park”), an Intervenor in this appeal, has moved to
dismiss the appeal on the basis that it is now moot. The motion is supported by HRM and
SMU. Park to Park argues that Ashcroft Homes Inc. (“Ashcroft”) no longer has an interest in the
property at 5900 Inglis St. (the “Property”). It points to the re-listing of the property by the
owner, the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation (“RCEC”).
Delays due to the wrongful refusal of the development permit by HRM resulted in Ashcroft’s
financing being made conditional on the outcome of the appeal. This was not acceptable to the
RCEC and so the RCEC took the position that the terms of the original Agreement of Purchase
and Sale scheduled to close October 31st, 2016 were not met. Ashcroft remains ready and
willing to close the original Agreement of Purchase and Sale and intends to take legal action to
enforce its right to do so.
In the meantime, Ashcroft submitted a new offer for the purchase of the Property on November
30, 2016 in accordance with the re-listing. We have received a copy of a letter from Deacon
Dan Daley that the RCEC has withdrawn consent to the appeal, but as of the deadline for filing
this letter, the offer on the new listing has not yet been formally accepted or rejected by the
RCEC (although note that allnovascotia.com has issued a bulletin).
Ashcroft therefore respectfully requests the Board’s indulgence to extend the timeline for its
Reply until such time as a) the outcome of this bid process is determined and communicated to
Ashcroft as its interest in the Property (or lack thereof) is the essential fact on which Park to
Park’s application is premised and b) if unsuccessful in the current bid process, Ashcroft intends
to take legal action to pursue its rights.

Board letter December 6 to Rubin re request :

"The Board has reviewed your letter dated December 5, 2016.
The exact nature of your request to extend the timeline to file your Reply is unclear. The second scenario (Option B), wherein Ashcroft would intend to take legal action to pursue its rights, would appear to require an indefinite adjournment. If that were the case, it would appear that the Park to Park and HRM Rebuttal comments would also be extended.
The Board is also mindful that the present circumstances surrounding the 2nd bid process launched by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation relate directly to the issue of mootness.
Accordingly, in the circumstances, the Board asks that Ms. Rubin provide further specifics about her request for an extension of the deadline to file submissions on the issue of mootness, including the impact on HRM and the Intervenors respecting their submissions on the point. Ms. Rubin is directed to file such comments regarding her request for an extension and/or adjournment by Wednesday, December 14, 2016. Any Rebuttal submissions from HRM and the Intervenors are obviously deferred until the Board receives Ms. Rubin’s submissions.
The Board observes that the filing of submissions on the merits of the appeal were previously suspended by prior direction of the Board on November 22, 2016. This occurred to accommodate the filing of submissions on the motion to dismiss for mootness. The status of those submissions may also need to be canvassed at some point in the near future, given the intent of the HRM Charter to deal with planning appeals in an efficient manner. "