Industry Reports

Would Highly-Anticipated May 5 Meeting on KED Be Postponed?

Kingsway Entertainment District is once again a topic of discussion as the processes surrounding this controversial project might end up taking longer than previously expected. John Norris, the case manager for the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal still reviewing appeals against the casino complex, received a letter seeking yet another delay in the process. This time it may amount to 90 days.

The controversial project has been stirring the pot in Greater Sudbury for a couple of years now, as its opposition appears to be determined to put an end to reckless spending of taxpayers’ cash on it. Gordon Petch is the lawyer representing one of the main opponents of Kingsway Entertainment District, Tom Fortin. The lawyer recently addressed some issues to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in a letter.

Lawyer Seeks 90-Day Delay

Mr. Petch pointed out that the City of Sudbury has delayed the sending of information on the subject and he would need more time ahead of the LPAT hearing this spring. The meeting striving to review all remaining appeals and propel the process forward is set to take place on May 5. However, Lawyer Petch is in need of more time and he would like a 90-day delay.

Tom Fortin is one of the main opponents of the casino project within the KED project and last year he managed to take things to the Superior Court. Mr. Petch would represent him there, defending his position that the City of Sudbury showed bias when approving the special zone project that introduced a casino venue to KED. The approval in question took place back in April 2018.

A couple of bylaws were approved back then, eventually permitting a casino venue to be built as an integral part of the Kingsway Entertainment District. Across 1,500 pages, Mr. Fortin points out that the decision made by them were influenced by bias and should, therefore, be reconsidered for the communal benefit.

KED Controversy Continues

Mr. Petch has addressed the issue in a letter to the case manager for the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal. Evidence requested back in 2018 was not provided until the beginning of this year and this has delayed the process as a whole. This equates to a delay of 18 months which has substantially delayed the lawyer’s work. What triggered action was the reply application filed on December 18, 2019.

February 13 saw the full package of materials being filed with the Superior Court, completely scrapping the initial timetable for action. Such a delay of the evidence requested is a reason enough for the lawyer to request more time, as he would not be able to prepare ahead of the May 5 meeting. Mr. Petch pointed out that at this point preparation for the May 5 meeting is impossible and a delay of 90 days would facilitate the process eyeing positive results.

Along with the LPAT congregation in May, this 18-month delay has also impacted the Superior Court process. A hearing supposed to take place at the beginning of 2020 would have to be postponed to April or May. According to Mr. Fortin’s lawyer, the Superior Court should issue its ruling and only then the LPAT would be able to come up with a resolution that makes sense. This would further delay the process until the end of 2020.