Everyone knew that replacing the 67-year-old Sudbury Arena wasn't going to be easy, and, as Sudbury residents saw in 2018, it will not be.
After picking the Kingsway as the preferred location in 2017, planning meetings were scheduled for January for preliminary review of the zoning changes needed for the project to move ahead.
But the battle over replacing the downtown rink – the oldest in the OHL, having been built in 1951 – was just starting.
Zoning changes were needed to allow the $100-million arena and parking lot to be built, while an Official Plan amendment was needed for the $55-million casino.
After those preliminary meetings, three days were set aside in late March to hear each application. Dozens of speakers lined up for or (mostly) against the proposal, with reasons ranging from moral opposition to casinos, a belief that gambling siphons money from vulnerable citizens and that the arena should stay downtown.
“I will not take my grandchildren to an arena that is linked to a gambling emporium,” Sudburian John Caruso told the planning committee. “Arena patrons will not be taking their kids for lunch at an arena linked to a casino.”
But having committed to the Kingsway Entertainment District in the dramatic 2017 vote, it was expected the rezonings would eventually be passed by council – and that the approval would be fought by the well-financed opponents to the plan.
The decisions were formally approved by the full city council in April by an 11-2 vote, and as Sudbury.com said in a headline at the time, “let the legal battle begin.” https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/arena-casino-rezoning-approved-let-the-legal-battle-begin-889616
And it didn't take long. The Downtown BIA and local businessman Tom Fortin hired lawyer Gordon Petch for its fight with the city, and were joined by other residents in launching 12 appeals in all. Petch is a renowned planning lawyer who managed, in 2016, to get city council in Peterborough to make a $3-million deal with Peterborough's BIA, ironically, in exchange for dropping the BIA's legal fight to try and force the city to build a new casino downtown.
Petch made a range of arguments in his appeal, including that a referendum was needed before a casino could be built, as well as an economic impact study.
There was hope that a decision would come within a year under the new Local Planning Appeals Tribunal system, and initially the timeline for a decision was June 2019 – just a couple months later than anticipated.
But hopes for a quick resolution were dashed at the first LPAT hearing in November, when tribunal members said the new rules were so new, that working through the process would take time, and referrals to divisional court may be necessary.
The LPAT case management conference was supposed to finalize the issues that will have to be addressed at the full hearing stage.
Stephen Watt, the lawyer representing Greater Sudbury, argued six of the issues raised in the appeal are beyond the scope of the LPAT, including the argument the city had to have a referendum before approving the casino.
When LPAT member Chris Conti suggested they could still try and narrow down the issues not being challenged, Petch said that didn't make sense since that decision will impact how the reset of the process proceeds.
“There is no agreement on any issues,” he said, adding it made more sense for a ruling on the jurisdiction first.
“Until you make your ruling, we're kind of playing with dust.”
While Petch suggested a hearing for January, a second CMC in March and a hearing in June, the tribunal instead opted for written submissions from both sides in December, to be followed by a second case management conference to be held by telephone, rather than in person.
The LPAT also put the timeline on hold, meaning that not only was June 2019 no longer the deadline, a new deadline wouldn't be set for the time being.
And earlier this month, Gateway Casino's said in a corporate filing in the U.S. that a decision is not expected before September 2019, and that the legal battle may kill the Kingsway casino.
Looking to 2019, the next step in the process will be a second case management conference, where the tribunal will try again to determine which issues actually need to be addressed at the formal hearing – whenever it takes place.
