Update -- Aug. 12, 2019
Aug 8th CMC Meeting and
The August 8th CMC meeting held in council chambers included two hours
of arguments, by the applicants solicitor, regarding a motion to
dismiss the Minnow Lake Application without a hearing. The Minnow Lake
application deals with potential Ramsey Lake water quality issues
caused by salt runoff from the proposed parking lots at the KED.
The tribunal has reserved its decision on the matter. We expect a
ruling sometime in the coming months.
Our goal for the CMC meeting was to obtain permission to submit a
motion to stay (pause) the LPAT proceedings to allow our Superior Court
Application to proceed. This would avoid the duplication of efforts and
expenses by preventing two separate proceedings running concurrently.
The permission to submit a motion was granted.
A hearing date for the LPAT proceedings was then set for May 5th, 2020
which is several months later than we had anticipated. This
negates the need for a motion to stay the LPAT proceeding because there
is enough time before the May 2020 hearing to have our Superior Court
We are presently working to perfect our "Application to Quash" in
Superior Court. In the interest of the community, we will request an
expedited process to ensure a timely conclusion to this effort.
Details of milestones throughout the Superior Court process will be
posted on this forum.
Update -- Aug. 6, 2019
Superior Court Application
In the Notice of Decision
issued by the LPAT tribunal last month, LPAT stated "if there are
concerns about council's discretion having been fettered then this is a
matter that should proceed to Superior Court" (pg 16-17). After
careful deliberation, and consultation with our advisors and
supporters, we have decided to proceed with the
Application. At 1:15pm today our legal council will request a
date from LPAT for a motion to grant a temporary stay of the LPAT
proceedings pending the outcome of the Superior Court Application.
Update -- July 11, 2019
Second CMC Scheduled,
Decision on Motions
We have received a Notice of
Decision from LPAT which includes notice of a second CMC scheduled
for 10AM, August 8th, 2019 at Tom Davies Square.
Several motions were initiated at the November 2018 CMC meeting.
This Notice of Decision
outlines the reasons for the tribunals rulings on the motions.
Regarding to the jurisdictional motion, the tribunal has decided that 6
of the 28 issues before them were not within the jurisdiction of the
LPAT. The issues removed included those dealing with the "willing host"
question, requirements under O.Reg 81/12, and the bias (fettering)
The ruling was based on the Bill 139 version of LPAT which limits the
right of appeal to matters directly related to official plans and
provincial policy statements. We had expected that some issues may be
determined to be out of LPAT jurisdiction. We remain with 22 of the
strongest issues before LPAT and are confident in the eventual
outcome. Regarding the "bias" issue, we
have filed an application in Superior Court as the counsel for the city
had suggested. We have the option to pursue that issue, in that venue,
at a later date.
It is important to note that Bill 108 transition rules are presently in
the comment stage. These rules state that any LPAT proceeding that has
not reached the hearing stage will transition to the new rules. It
appears likely that Bill 108 rules will come into force before we reach
our hearing. Bill 108 rules remove the restrictions on the basis of
appeal that todays ruling was based. This may bring these issues back
Further decisions include;
1. Added parties ( Gateway and Zulich) granted a right to file a joint
2. Appellants ( Fortin, Hales, BIA) are denied the right to file a
Responding Case Synopsis.
To conclude, we are neither surprised nor disappointed by the
decisions. They were made under Bill 139 LPAT rules and will not have a
material effect on our chances of success.
FYI #2 April 30th, 2019
reason a casino cannot locate anywhere in Sudbury.
FYI #1 March 29th, 2019
"Place of Amusement" does not include a casino.
Update -- Nov 6th, 2018
CMC Adds Complexity, Time
The Case Management Conference (CMC) for the Sudbury arena/casino appeal was conducted
on Nov 6th, 2018 at the Provincial Building in Sudbury. There
were a number of developments at the meeting that have added
complexity, time, and costs to the process.
Rail Deck Decision Suspends
The LPAT process is new, and the CMC in Sudbury was only the second
such meeting held. The first was held in Toronto on September 20th,
2018 concerning a proposed $1.6 Billion development (Rail
Deck LPAT Appeal). At that meeting both sides of the table
expressed concern for their lack of right to examine, and cross-examine,
expert witnesses according to LPAT rules. This fundamental right is one
of the two key tenants of natural law. It was agreed by all parties to
refer the question to divisional court for a ruling on whether LPAT can
deny this fundamental right. The divisional court will provide a
ruling which may take several months. Until a ruling is sent down, all LPAT
proceedings where expert witnesses are expected to be called will
see a delay in scheduling of hearings,
including the Sudbury case. The ruling could be made as early as
January 2019, although, an appeal of the ruling is also possible. The
bottom line is that the official timetable for the Sudbury case is now
officially suspended and we will not know the hearing date for several
months. At the first CMC meeting in Toronto the
hearing date was set for May 27, 2019 before the divisional court
question was proposed. This is over 8 months from when the CMC
Gateway and Land Owner added as Party to Appeal
Both the landowner and Gateway have been granted party status in the
appeal. The two new parties have requested to submit their own
appeal synopsis documents which will require the opposing side to
prepare replies for submission to LPAT, or alternatively, as
preparation for the hearing. Their participation also increases
the time required for a hearing considerably, especially if
cross-examination is allowed as expected. What was expected to be
2-day hearing is now expected to be 1 week at the minimum. LPAT has
also required the appellants to produce three expert witnesses
for the hearing at their cost. Two of those witnesses reside in
Southern Ontario adding considerable costs to each day of the hearing.
Each day of the hearing will now cost the appellants approximately
Several Motions to be Submitted
The tribunal agreed to hear several motions from both sides of the
appeal. The motions and replies from opposing counsel must be submitted
by Dec 19th, 2018. The tribunal will then provide a decision in January
2019 on all motions. The motions by the city include a question
on the jurisdiction of LPAT in regards to bias, and the casino willing
host question. Motions from the appellants include requests for
production (asking the city to provide certain documents), and another
asking for a "right of reply" to opposing synopsis.
A second CMC hearing is expected in late January 2019 where a hearing
date will be set, provided the divisional court has ruled on the right
to cross-examine. In the meantime we will be stepping up our fund
raising efforts as the costs for this effort are expected to rise
considerably due to a longer hearing.
Update -- Aug 28th, 2018
Appeal Case Synopsis
We have submitted our
complete case synopsis to LPAT as per the required procedure.
The synopsis outlines the key points we are arguing in our appeal
relating to both the arena and casino. The next step is for the city to
prepare and submit its response by Semptember 17th.
Update -- Aug 8th, 2018
declares all KED appeals valid!
We have received "Notice of Commencement" letters from the LPAT
tribunal regarding our appeal of the Kingsway Entertainment District (
Arena/casino). This is very good news as not only has the appeal of
CasinoFreeSudbury been declared valid, but all other submitted appeals
will also proceed. The other appeals include those by the faith
community, Downtown BIA, Steve May, and a group with concerns over
the water quality of Lake Ramsey. The city was expecting the
appeals to be dismissed at this preliminary stage, however, it is now
official that all appeals are valid and will now proceed to the
Case Management Conference stage in a minimum of 75 days as per LPAT
Update -- June 7th, 2018
LPAT In Receipt of Appeal Record from City
We have received an acknowledgement from the LPAT tribunal of their
receipt of the appeal record from the city. The tribunal will undertake
a preliminary screening of the appeals and advise the result of the
screening with 10 days from the date of the acknowledgment letter as
per LPAT rule 26.05. Ten business days from the date of the letter
brings us to June 21st, the day we expect to hear the results of the
May 7th, 2018
LPAT Appeal Filed
Today we have submitted our formal appeal to the LPAT. The actual
appeal documents are over 200 pages in length, however, we are posting
here our 20 page synopsis of the basis for our appeal.
Appeal Synopsis. PDF
This is the beginning of the LPAT process which we expect to last for
the better part of a year. The next step is the preliminary
review which we expect to pass without issue. Following this, the Case
Management Conference ( CMC) which will be a minimum of 75 days from
the time the city sends its appeal record to LPAT sometime in early
June for the preliminary review. Over the summer, apart from some
R&R, we intend to continue our fundraising efforts as we do expect
lengthy hearings as a result of our appeal. This will be an expensive
This fight is about what is best for our community, our culture, local
businesses and our social well being. While words of
encouragement are appreciated we also do require more funds to ensure a
strong appeal. Consider making a donation either though our
or for corporate donations, call us at (705) 562 0260.
Have a great summer and we'll see you in the fall when the real fight
(We will post a message on this site if/when we are notified of the
preliminary review results.)
Further, here is a
6 minute video
of the presentation to the Planning Committee outlining our concerns in
relation to PPS, and our official Plan, on March 26th, 2018.
Our legal council is Gordon Petch of
Chambers in Oakville, Ontario.
About the Campaign
The Ontario Ministry of Finance ( via the OLG ) has publically stated that a casino must have the support of the
host community in order to proceed.
The Casino Free Sudbury campaign provides the
opportunity to area businesses to let the Minister of Finance know;
"We believe a full casino is not in the best interests of the
City of Greater Sudbury and demand a moratorium be placed on any
expansion of casino type gambling facilities in our community. This includes,
changes in size, location, or type of gambling activities. "
We need you, as a business owner, or
charity operator, to endorse this message by signing an endorsement
letter. Let us be the collective voice of businesses in Sudbury
regarding the casino development.
endorsement letter is
confidential and we will make no public disclosure of your
Your endorsement letter will be used for lobbying
purposes with The Sudbury Chamber of Commerce, Greater Sudbury
Mayor and council, and the Ontario Minister of Finance.
NOTE: There is an option on the endorsement letter
to allow use of your logo on the web page, mailings and
advertisements. If you feel strongly about this issue, please
consider this option as it will help in recruiting other
businesses.No matter what type
of business you own, how small or large, profit, not-for-profit, or
every business in our community will be affected if a full casino is
built in our city. Take the time to review the
CasinoFACTS and Endorse the Campaign.
How Did We
On May 15, 2012, the City of Greater Sudbury council passed a resolution to endorse the City of Greater Sudbury as a willing host for a new full casino. The resolution was passed without public consultation and following the resolution, public statements by the city touted the increased revenue to the city, and the prospect of a large piece of public infrastructure ( paid for by the casino) as reasons for their support.
The city did later hold a public information form and conduct
an on-line survey, however, no objective data on the effect of casinos
in remote locations was presented. A pdf of the presentation is available
The Sudbury Chamber of Commerce has never provided
its members with objective data concerning casinos. It continues to support
the development of a full casino in Sudbury.
The bottom Line...
There has been no investigation, or presentation of objective data concerning the effect a full casino would have on our community.
This campaign is about giving local business an opportunity to
express their concerns about the effects a full casino will have on