LPAT hearings on Sudbury's Kingsway Entertainment District wrap up

Parties on both sides of the Kingsway Entertainment District (KED) dispute have presented their arguments to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT).

Construction on the proposed arena, casino and event centre complexwas originally expected to be completed this year, but the project has been held up by legal challenges.

The issues before theLPAT centre around planning principles and whether the city properly followedthe planning act, the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, and the city's own official plan.

Arguments from appellants

Lawyer Gordon Petch represented appellants Tom Fortin, a business owner and leader of the group Casino Free Sudbury;university professor Christopher Duncanson-Hales, who represents a group of faith leaders; and the downtown business improvement association, representing "small business owners who have poured their life savings"into their downtown businesses.

Petch arguedthe city did not properly study the economic impact and social impacts of the complex, both when it comes to the impacts of a casino on the community nearby, as well as the effects on the downtown of relocating the casino.

While the city did hold public meetings, Petch argued the focus was on what the complex would look like, rather than the question of if it should exist.

"This was not a genuine question ever put to anyone," Petch said.

There's a process and it was detailed, and it was followed. Steve Watt, lawyer for the City of Greater Sudbury

Another appellant, Steve May, represented himself, saying he was there "as a non expert in an advocacy role."

May saidthe city failed to follow a series of procedures related to replacing a public use building in this case, the arena.

Arguments from city, Zulich

Acting on behalf of the city, lawyer Steve Wattsaid the onus is on the appellants to prove that the city failed to meet the criteria, something he argued they failed to do.

Watt said the city conductedextensive public consultation, which included considerations about economic and social impacts.

"There's a process and it was detailed, and it was followed," Wattsaid.

He also noted there are no requirements that the arena remain downtown.

Daniel Artenosi, representing developer Dario Zulich, noted that the zoning of the Kingsway land would have already allowed for a private arenawith the zoning change only needed because the arena will be publicly owned.

"Whether we're talking about a private or public arena, at the end of the day we're talking about an arena," Artenosi said.

May later refuted that argument, saying unlike private arenas, public ones serve as community hubs, and they aren't directly comparable.

"It may look like a duck but it certainly doesn't quack like a duck," May said.

Appeal could cause further delays

LPATvice chairDavid Lanthier will now review the arguments, to decide if the bylaws allowing the development should stand.

However the KED saga could see further delays. Petch, representing the appellants, suggested he will likely appeal a recent Superior Court decision, which was in the city's favour on issues around the process it followed in approving the development.

If Petch does appeal the decision,Lanthier will then have to decide if he will reserve his decision, until that appeal process is complete.

Those arguing in favour of the development argued the decision should not be reserved.

"That is not efficient for a matter that has been around since 2018," said Andrew Jeanrie, acting on behalf of Gateway Casinos.

Lanthier said he would consider submissions from the lawyers before deciding how to proceed assuming Petch goes ahead with the appeal.