Two Zoning Bylaws at Once - Illegal?

I was informed by Brian Parker (urban planner in Toronto) that section 34(30) of the planning act states the new bylaw mustn't be enforced by the OMB until all appeals have been dealt with.
 Here are relevant excerpts from the planning act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter P.13, Section 34:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to O.M.B.

    (19)  Not later than 20 days after the day that the giving of notice as required by subsection (18) is completed, any of the following may appeal to the Municipal Board by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the by-law and the reasons in support of the objection, accompanied by the fee prescribed under the Ontario Municipal Board Act:

      1.   The applicant.

      2.   A person or public body who, before the by-law was passed, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

      3.   The Minister.  2006, c. 23, s. 15 (10).

When by-law deemed to have come into force

    (21)  When no notice of appeal is filed under subsection (19), the by-law shall be deemed to have come into force on the day it was passed except that where the by-law is passed under circumstances mentioned in subsection 24 (2) the by-law shall not be deemed to have come into force on the day it was passed until the amendment to the official plan comes into effect.  R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 34 (21); 1994, c. 23, s. 21 (10); 1996, c. 4, s. 20 (8).

Hearing and notice thereof

    (24)  On an appeal to the Municipal Board, the Board shall hold a hearing of which notice shall be given to such persons or bodies and in such manner as the Board may determine.  R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, s. 34 (24).

Restriction re adding parties

    (24.1)  Despite subsection (24), in the case of an appeal under subsection (11) that relates to all or part of an application for an amendment to a by-law that is refused, or in the case of an appeal under subsection (19), only the following may be added as parties:

      1.   A person or public body who satisfies one of the conditions set out in subsection (24.2).

      2.   The Minister.  2006, c. 23, s. 15 (12).

Same

    (24.2)  The conditions mentioned in paragraph 1 of subsection (24.1) are:

      1.   Before the by-law was passed, the person or public body made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

      2.   The Municipal Board is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.  2006, c. 23, s. 15 (12).

New information and material at hearing

    (24.3)  This subsection applies if information and material that is presented at the hearing of an appeal described in subsection (24.1) was not provided to the municipality before the council made the decision that is the subject of the appeal.  2006, c. 23, s. 15 (12).

Same

    (24.4)  When subsection (24.3) applies, the Municipal Board may, on its own initiative or on a motion by the municipality or any party, consider whether the information and material could have materially affected the council’s decision, and if the Board determines that it could have done so, it shall not be admitted into evidence until subsection (24.5) has been complied with and the prescribed time period has elapsed.  2006, c. 23, s. 15 (12).

Notice to council

    (24.5)  The Municipal Board shall notify the council that it is being given an opportunity to,

    (a)   reconsider its decision in light of the information and material; and

    (b)   make a written recommendation to the Board.  2006, c. 23, s. 15 (12).

Council’s recommendation

    (24.6)  The Municipal Board shall have regard to the council’s recommendation if it is received within the time period mentioned in subsection (24.4), and may but is not required to do so if it is received afterwards.  2006, c. 23, s. 15 (12).

Conflict with SPPA

    (24.7)  Subsections (24.1) to (24.6) apply despite the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.  2006, c. 23, s. 15 (12).

Coming into force

    (30)  If one or more appeals have been filed under subsection (19), the by-law does not come into force until all of such appeals have been withdrawn or finally disposed of, whereupon the by-law, except for those parts of it repealed or amended under subsection (26) or as are repealed or amended by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (29.1), shall be deemed to have come into force on the day it was passed.  1996, c. 4, s. 20 (13); 2004, c. 18, s. 6 (4).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me this means the bylaw is deemed to have come into force on the day it was passed, but shall not be enforced until all appeals have been disposed.  This is an interesting situation.  Lets take some test scenarios:

1. The appeals are going forward.  The bylaw is not enforced.  The appeals, a year later, are all withdrawn or come to no result.  The bylaw is then deemed to have come into force on the day it was passed, now a year ago.  What happens to all those files that were processed without the bylaw enforced?
   
2. The appeals are going forward.  The bylaw is enforced, contrary to the planning act.  All appeals come to no result.  The bylaw is comes into force on the day it was passed, now a year ago.  Everything is fine, except the law was broken for a year, with a bunch of people suffering the consequences.  Now all those people can turn around and sue.
   
3. The appeals are going forward.  The bylaw is not enforced.  They result in changes to the bylaw.  A new bylaw is drafted and is subsequently passed, a year later.  No legal battle arises for the files process through-out that year.
   
4. The appeals are going forward.  The bylaw is illegally enforced.  The appeals process results in changes to the bylaw.  A new bylaw is passed or amendments are passed.  All those people who suffered the enforcement in the interrum can sue the city?

Perhaps a useful concept in resolving this could be to recognize the planning act is making a distinction between the date of enactment and the date of enforcement.  It seems to imply enforcement does not automatically follow upon enactment of a zoning bylaw, but the date of enactment can be placed in the past, upon resolution of appeals.

......