Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 18, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL190022

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Friends of Simcoe Forests Inc. Appellant: Edward Krajcir Appellant: Nicholyn Farms Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 2 Municipality: Township of Springwater OMB Case No.: PL190022 OMB File No.: PL190022 OMB Case Name: Edward Krajcir v. Springwater (Township)

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Nicholyn Farms Inc.	David S. White
County of Simcoe	E. Marshall Green and Mark Vernon
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing	Ugo Popadic and Alexandra Robertson
The Township of Springwater	Bruce Engell
Friends of Simcoe Forests Inc.	Ramani Nadarajah and Jacqueline Wilson
Edward Krajcir & Scarlett Graham-Krajcir	Eric W.D. Boate

Heard: August 10, 2021 in writing

DECISION DELIVERED BY R.G.M. MAKUCH AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The hearing of County of Simcoe Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (“COPA 2”) and the related Township of Springwater Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment (“TOPA”), which implements Official Plan Amendment 2 (“OPA 2”) at the lower-tier level, has been scheduled to proceed in two parts. The first part of the hearing is scheduled to commence on Tuesday, September 14, 2021, and the second part will commence on Tuesday, November 2, 2021.

2Both OPA 2 and the TOPA apply solely to the lands known municipally as 2976 Horseshoe Valley Road West, in the Township of Springwater, which has been identified by the County of Simcoe as the site for the proposed Environmental Resource Recovery Centre (“ERRC”). These comprise the site-specific ERRC Hearing.

3Nicholyn Farms Inc.(“Nicholyn”) is an Appellant to OPA 2, and a Party to the TOPA. It operates a livestock operation and farm market on property adjacent to the proposed site of the ERRC for which COPA 2 is sought.

NICHOLYN FARMS INC. MOTION

4Nicholyn brings a motion for an adjournment of the hearing for the appeals of COPA 2, which is currently scheduled for a hearing commencing on Tuesday, September 14, 2021 as noted above. The motion requests that the hearing be adjourned until Tuesday, November 2, 2021, which is the date currently scheduled for the second part of the hearing. This would permit the hearing of the appeal for COPA 2 to be consolidated with the hearing for the appeals of County Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (“COPA 5”) approved by the Province on June 21, 2021.

5The following are the Grounds for the Motion:

1. “Nicholyn is an Appellant to COPA 2, which is scheduled for hearing to commence on September 14, 2021
2. Simcoe County Official Plan Amendment No. 5 (COPA 5) was approved by the Province on June 21, 2021;
3. Nicholyn also appealed COPA 5 on July 7, 2021;
4. COPA 5 is on the Issues List for the hearing of COPA 2 and this Issues List is attached to the Procedural Order approved by the Tribunal on June 28, 2021;
5. At the Case Management Conference for COPA 2 on May 17, 2021,counsel for the County and MMAH both advised the Tribunal that COPA 5 had “no negative implications on COPA 2” and “impacts and amendments dealt with in COPA 2 cannot undo any COPA 2 decisions”. Nicholyn disagrees;
6. COPA 2 introduced Section 4.9.9 into the Simcoe County Official Plan. This section allows for the development of an Environmental Resource Recovery Centre (ERRC) on a 4.5 hectare site within the Freele Forest and immediately adjacent to the Nicholyn Farms land and business;
7. The ERRC is in fact a large scale heavy industrial garbage processing plant;
8. The Freele Forest is a 84 hectare Significant Forest that is currently designated “Greenland” and is part of the Provincial Natural Heritage System;
9. COPA 2 and its supporting documents go to great lengths to limit the ERRC to a 4.5 hectare site within the Freele Forest, and to try and explain how the balance of the forest will be protected;
10. COPA 5 amendments Section 4.9.9 renumbering it as Section 4.9.11 and adds the following sentence, “The boundaries of the County owned and operated waste management site are the boundary of the lands owned by the County on which waste management activities occur”. This amendment has the effect of increasing the size of the waste management site in the Freele Forest from 4.5 hectares to 84 hectares;
11. The new section 4.9.11 goes on to say that “The locations of all waste management sites shown on Schedules 5.6.1 and 5.6.2 within each local municipality will be mapped in the respective local municipal official plans”. This provision effectively eliminates the requirement of a local official Plan amendment;
12. At the COPA 2 hearing scheduled for September 14, 2021, the OLT is going to hear days of evidence on how the ERRC can be justified within a Significant Greenland Forest and how it is going to be limited to 4.5 hectare site within the Freele Forest. The evidence will go to great lengths trying to substantiate that there will be no negative impact on the balance of the 84 hectare Freele Forest;
13. At the COPA 5 hearing to be scheduled sometime in the future, OLT will hear evidence that supports COPA 5 and disregards the COPA 2 evidence. In support of COPA 5 the County will have to justify that the entire 84 hectare Freele Forest should be designated as a Waste Management Site;
14. COPA 5 also provides that the ERRC located within the Freele Forest can be enlarged and expanded beyond the COPA 2 4.5 hectare site without a further amendment to the County Official Plan;
15. It is anticipated that the same witnesses will be called at both the COPA 2 and the COPA 5 hearings, to give evidence on planning, engineering, and environmental impacts within the Freele Forest and on the neighbouring community;
16. It would appear that the evidence of the County at the COPA 5 hearing justifying the designation of the 84 hectares will need to be inconsistent with its evidence at the COPA 2 hearing in regards to the protection of the balance of the Freele Forest;
17. An OLT decision to approve COPA 2 on the basis that the remainder of the Freele Forest will be protected will be undone by an OLT decision approving COPA 5
18. The current OLT hearing for COPA 2 has already been consolidated with the hearing for the local Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law. This consolidated hearing has been broken into two phases and two separate hearings have been scheduled for September 14, 2021 and November 1, 2021.
19. There will now have to be a third hearing to hear the appeals of COPA 5. OLT will be hearing a similar or contradictory evidence from the same witnesses on the same issues at all three hearings.
20. Three separate hearings with the same witnesses and the same issues is not in the public interest and is not an efficient use of the Tribunal’s time and resources.
21. Three separate hearings represents a huge burden and a massive expense for Nicholyn Farms and the other appellant;
22. It was the County that decided to proceed with COPA 5 while COPA 2 was before the Tribunal;
23. The County must have been aware that COPA 5 had a direct and material impact on COPA 2 and on the appellants of COPA 2;
24. COPA 2 was approved by the province in November 2018 and a two-month delay in the commencement of these proceedings imposes no hardship or prejudice on the County or the Province; and
25. Failure to grant an adjournment will subject Nicholyn Farms to multiple hearings, massive expense and a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.”

6Nicholyn argues that if COPA 2, COPA 5 and the amendment to the local Official Plan are not consolidated, the Tribunal will be put in the position of having to make a finding and a decision on COPA 2 and the local OPA, without knowing whether or not those planning instruments comply with the County Official Plan as amended by COPA 5.

7Nicholyn alleges that the County, prior to the adoption of COPA 5 was well aware of, and had knowledge of, the following:

“COPA 5 and specifically the amendments to Section 4.9.9 (now 4.9.11) materially impacted the Freele Forest by increasing the Waste Management Site designation from 4.5 hectares to 84 hectares;

That Nicholyn Farms is the immediate and abutting neighbour to the Freele Forest;

That Nicholyn Farms had appealed County Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (COPA 2) and specifically section 4.9.9;

That Nicholyn Farms was opposed to the establishment of a Waste Management Site within the Freele Forest;

That COPA 5 impacted Nicholyn Farms and its appeal of COPA 2;

Prior to the adoption of COPA 5, the County had received the following documents in writing, which sets out the Nicholyn Farms’ concerns about the establishment of a Waste Management Site in the neighbouring Freely Forest:

i. Letter of appeal re COPA 2

ii. Case Synopsis and

iii. Affidavit of Lynda Van Casteren

Nicholyn Farms was advised of COPA 5 after it had been posted on the Environmental Registry (“ER”).

Nicholyn Farms immediately prepared a draft letter to MMAH in response to the ER posting.

Nicholyn Farms, through its counsel, immediately contacted Mr. Green, the County in-house lawyer and was advised that:

b. Mr Green had no idea what we were talking about.

c. Mr. Green had no knowledge of COPA 5.

Mr. Green requested a copy of the draft letter to MMA

MATERIALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON MOTION

8The materials before the Tribunal on this Motion are the following:

a) Nicholyn Motion Record dated July 14, 2021 including the Affidavit of Lynda Van Casteren sworn July 14, 2021;

b) County of Simcoe Notice of Response to Nicholyn Motion, dated July 22, 2021, including the Affidavit of Adrianna Spinosa sworn July 22, 2021;

c) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) Response to Nicholyn Motion, dated July 22, 2021;

d) Nicholyn Reply to Simcoes County Response, dated July 26, 2021; and

e) Simcoe County Sur-Reply dated July 27, 2021.

9It is noted that the Township of Springwater as well as Edward Krajcir and Scarlett Graham-Krajcir did not respond to the Nicholyn Motion

FRIENDS OF SIMCOE FOREST INC. (“FSF”) RESPONSE TO NICHOLYN MOTION

10FSF in its Response states that it agrees that the matters should be consolidated because of the reasons outlined in Nicholyn Farms’ materials.

11FSF in its Response to the Nicholyn Motion, had argued that MMAH was asking the Tribunal to administratively dismiss the purported appeals to OPA 5 by Nicholyn and FSF and that this was an improper request. It was quite clear from a reading of paragraph 25 of MMAH’s Response Motion, that the MMAH was asking the Tribunal to exercise its own authority to screen the purported appeals of OPA 5, and that the Tribunal make its own determination under section 19 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 (“OLTA”) as to whether the purported appeals of OPA 5 are valid, or not. The County and MMAH were taking the position that Nicholyn and FSF had not made submissions to the County prior to adoption of COPA 5, as required by s. 17(36) of the PA.

12MMAH simply took the position that until the process under s. 19 of the OLTA is carried out, and the Tribunal satisfies itself that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the merits of OPA 5, it is inappropriate and premature to consider any relief relating to OPA 5 within the context of OPA 2, as a general matter, and particularly when that relief will have the impact of delaying a hearing that is scheduled to finally begin in six weeks after several years of delay.

SIMCOE COUNTY POSITION ON MOTION

13The County argues that the Motion should be dismissed based on the following grounds:

a. Neither Nicholyn nor the FOSF are entitled to appeal COPA 5 according to the provisions of the Planning Act (PA)

b. COPA 5 has not been appealed by any qualified person or agency and is in effect according to the provisions of the PA

c. Any possible impact of COPA 5 on the ERRC hearing is already on the issues list for that hearing and thus there is no prejudice to Nicholyn or the FOSF’s right to a full and complete hearing on their concerns

d. A consolidation of the ERRC Hearing with any hearing related to COPA 5 (if it was not already in effect) would be prejudicial to those who support COPA 5 since they would need to attend and marshal evidence for a site-specific hearing in which they share no interest

e. Any adjournment of the ERRC hearing would be extremely prejudicial to the County which faces strict deadlines for the provision of the important waste management infrastructure that it hopes to implement through the ERRC hearing.

14Furthermore, the County maintains that none of the Appellants to COPA 2 or any of the parties supporting this Motion meet the statutory requirements set out in s. 17(36) of the Planning Act (“PA”) and that no one besides the parties supporting this motion have filed notices of appeal of the Minister’s decision to approve COPA 5. Therefore, according to the provisions of the PA COPA 5 is now in full force and effect.

15The only evidence provided in support of this motion is the Affidavit of Lynda Van Casteren, sworn July 14, 2021. Ms. Van Casteren is a principal of Nicholyn, one of the Appellants to COPA 2 and does not possess any professional qualifications to proffer any of the planning conclusions that are contained in her Affidavit.

16Adrianna Spinosa, a Registered Professional Planner, in her Affidavit of sworn July 14, 2021, explains the background and planning context with respect to COPA 2 and COPA 5. Ms. Spinosa was involved in the development of COPA 5 and has informed herself, through discussions with other staff and with the County’s legal counsel, of the events involved with COPA 2.

17Ms. Spinosa explained that the ERRC Hearing is being held in the context of Provincial legislation that requires municipalities to meet specific waste management targets within specific timeframes. The hearing is centered on the County’s desire to build a specific centre for sorting materials from household waste collection for particular end uses, and in particular, to construct a facility that will process household organic waste into fertilizer that can be used by local farmers. She explains that the facility has been named the ERRC since the intention is to art cover important resources from the County’s waste stream in furtherance of the County’s (and Province’s) waste management and environmental goals.

18A decision on the TOPA was never made by the Township resulting in an appeal by the County. Ms. Spinosa explains that in order to avoid the additional, and duplicative procedure of having to process two Official Plan Amendments that would undergo identical scrutiny, and to follow the Provincial mandate which now considers waste management facilities to be “infrastructure”, the County decided to allow waste management, specifically non- landfill facilities to be a permitted use in any County Official Plan designation. It was still specifically provided, though, that if the lower tier official plan designation did not allow for such a facility, then notwithstanding this County provision, a local Official Plan Amendment would be required. Thus, all of the usual “principle of development” and implementation matters would still be required to be proven on adoption and on approval. COPA 5 was the vehicle through which this “unified process” was put in place.

19Ms. Spinosa further explains that COPA 5 was put through a rigorous and very transparent process, which included several postings on the County’s public website, public meetings as called for under the PA, and a Council review open to the public through “Zoom”. Full statutory notice was given for all of the public meetings. No one attended the statutory public meeting. Two members of the public filed comments by email prior to Council adoption. Neither of these persons are associated with the Appellants to the ERRC Hearing. No one attended the Council meeting where same was adopted. COPA 5 was adopted by Council on February 9, 2021.

20Following the adoption of COPA 5 and as it was forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for adoption, and prior to a scheduled Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on COPA 2, Nicholyn’s counsel raised his concerns, essentially the same as are raised in this motion. In particular, concerns were raised that the wording in COPA 5 gave discretion to the County as to whether they would require a lower tier official plan. It was explained that many of the future sites which might be used for non-landfill waste management, and many of the existing sites which might be enlarged, are already designated in the lower tier official plans. However, an offer was made to seek a modification of the adopted COPA 5 to make that clear. It is noted that COPA 5 had not yet been approved by the Minister at that time. That suggestion was rejected.

21The Tribunal subsequently ordered that the parties agree on a Procedural Order. It had originally been contemplated that the hearing would be divided into two “phases” – one dealing with COPA 2 and one with the TOPA. Counsel for Nicholyn, noting that the issues for each of the amendments overlapped, asked that the hearing be “combined” and dealt with as “Part 1” and “Part 2”, not phases dealing with COPA 2 and then a separate phase for the TOPA. Counsel for the County, Ministry and Township consented.

22Furthermore, counsel for Nicholyn insisted that COPA 5, and any possible impact on the ERRC proposal, be made specific issues at the ongoing hearing. While disagreeing that COPA 5 was an appropriate issue, and with the proviso that they were not agreeing with that assertion, counsel for the County, the Ministry and the Township consented. The Minister approved COPA 5 On June 21, 2021.

23The County submits that neither Nicholyn nor the other Appellants to COPA 2 made any representations on COPA 5 up to and including the time of its adoption by County Council. Several of those persons who are now listed as “lay witnesses” in support of the Appellants’ case in the ERRC Hearing are members of ratepayer groups who are known for carefully monitoring all of County Council’s efforts with respect to the environment. None of these people attended any meetings or submitted any comments on OPA 5 prior to its adoption by Council.

24Ms. Spinosa has outlined specific deadlines set out in Provincial legislation by which it must meet its waste management objectives, including the processing of household organic wastes. She opines that any adjournment granted will most certainly mean that these deadlines will not be met. There are already 11 expert witnesses who have filed witness statements as well as ten lay witnesses who wish to testify on behalf of the Appellants, which means that the time allotted for the hearing in September and November will all be required to complete this hearing. To delay the hearing any further would cause serious prejudice to the County and its residents according to Ms. Spinosa.

25Furthermore, COPA 5 contains official plan provisions that are applicable County wide. The County is composed of 16 local municipalities. It should be noted that no resident or official from any of the other 16 municipalities has in fact appealed COPA 5. Ms. Spinosa opines that the issues that might be raised on a “county-wide basis” bear little if any resemblance to the site-specific issues that could be raised within the COPA 2 hearing. To join these County-wide considerations with the site-specific ERRC Hearing considerations would be unfair and prejudicial to the County and the many County residents and local municipal officials who by their lack of appeal of same must be taken to support OPA 5 and the important environmental objectives it furthers.

26Ms. Spinosa explains that the delay that has occurred so far in getting this hearing scheduled has already cost the County nearly two million dollars in lost waste management grants and that further delays will be additionally prejudicial to the County and its residents as costs mount to build this facility, and Provincial deadlines loom.

MMAH RESPONSE TO NICHOLYN MOTION

27The Ministry argues that the Motion should be dismissed.

28All parties to the ERRC Hearing, including Nicholyn, agreed to the scheduling of the ERRC Hearing in two parts, to commence on September 14, 2021 and on June 24, 2022, the Tribunal issued the Procedural Order (“PO”) for the combined site-specific ERRC Hearing, paragraph 20 of which clearly states that no adjournments or delays to the ERRC Hearing will be granted, except for serious hardship or illness.

29Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”) states that OPA 5 does not apply to the lands subject to the ERRC Hearing, and does not in any manner restrict the authority of the Tribunal to modify, approve, or not approve, OPA 2 or the TOPA.

30MMAH argues that Nicholyn and FSF have not met the requirements of s. 17(36) of the PA in that they did not make oral or written submissions to County Council prior to the adoption of COPA 5.

31Section 17(36) of the Planning Act provides as follows:

“Appeal to Tribunal

36. Any of the following may, not later than 20 days after the day that the giving of notice under subsection (35) is completed, appeal all or part of the decision of the approval authority to the Tribunal by filing a notice of appeal with t he approval authority:

i. A person or public body who, before the plan was adopted, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

ii. The Minister.

iii. In the case of a request to amend the plan, the person or public body that made the request.”

32COPA 5 was adopted by the Council of the County of Simcoe on February 9, 2021 and approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on June 21, 2021. Subsequently on July 7, 2021, Nicholyn and FSF filed purported appeals of OPA 5 pursuant to s. 17(36) of the PA. There are no other appeals to OPA 5, purported or otherwise.

33There is no indication in the OPA 5 appeal letters by Nicholyn or FSF, in the municipal record provided by the County of Simcoe, or in the Nicholyn Motion Record, which indicate that submissions were made to the County of Simcoe before the adoption of OPA 5, as required by s. 17(36) of the PA. The County of Simcoe Response does however proffer evidence that neither Nicholyn nor FSF made the required submission to the County of Simcoe, as required by the PA.

34MMAH argues that before considering any potential motion for the adjournment of the ERRC Hearing to consolidate with OPA 5, the Tribunal must first determine whether OPA 5 is properly before the Tribunal for adjudication. Rule 15 of the Tribunal‘s Rules of Practice and Procedure permit the Tribunal to administratively screen matters before commencing a proceeding to ensure compliance with any applicable statutory requirements, such as appeal requirements under the PA until such time as the Tribunal’s screening is complete, and a clear determination is made on whether the purported appeals of OPA 5 meet the statutory requirements of the PA.

35It is argued that in the event that the Tribunal determines the Nicholyn Farms and FSF appeals of OPA 5 to not be valid pursuant to s. 17(36) of the PA, there is no jurisdiction to consider relief relating to OPA 5 in any forum before the Tribunal, including as part of the ERRC Hearing.

36Furthermore, the Ministry also argues, in line with the County’s submission, that the relief sought in the Motion should not be granted since the ERRC Hearing is site-specific, whereas OPA 5 is a County-wide policy driven official plan amendment It is alleged that OPA 5 would allow for the expansion of an existing waste management site, for the purposes of non-landfilling activities, without an amendment to the County Official Plan. It would not, as suggested by Nicholyn, have the effect of undoing any decision made by the Tribunal with respect to OPA 2. There are no similarity of issues or experts. Furthermore, given that OPA 5 is County-wide, planning instrument, it is possible that other parties will attend and seek party status in that proceeding in the event that the Tribunal determines OPA 5 to be validly before the Tribunal. The issues raised by such parties or participants will not be related to the ERRC or ERRC Hearing.

37It is also argued that the requested consolidation Order would negate the possibility of completing the ERRC Hearing as scheduled. Adjourning the September portion of the ERRC Hearing, and scheduling it with the remaining two-week hearing in November, would jeopardize the ability to complete the ERRC Hearing within the time frame allotted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal would also have to carry out a number of administrative steps to schedule a CMC where: parties and participants would be identified; issues would be identified; motions would be heard as well as other matters which are the normal and usual matters to be addressed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

38The Tribunal has carefully considered the evidence before it as well as the submissions of counsel and finds that the Motion should be dismissed for the reasons that follow.

39The Tribunal agrees with the submissions of counsel for the County and MMAH in all respects. Nicholyn has simply not convinced the Tribunal that its Motion should be granted.

40The Tribunal finds based on the evidence before it as well as the submissions of counsel that there is no prejudice to any party, including Nicholyn and FSF, if the hearing proceeds as ordered on Tuesday, September 14, 2021. It is noted that Nicholyn has previously agreed to this schedule and will be able to call evidence relating to OPA 5 during the hearing as OPA 5 has been identified as an issue for this hearing.

41The Tribunal finds that the County and MMAH would be prejudiced by a further delay to the ERRC Hearing. If the start of the hearing were to be delayed until November, it is quite possible and likely, given the number of witnesses proposed by the parties, that the hearing would not be completed within the allotted two week time frame. The parties would have to wait until sometime in 2022 for the hearing to be completed.

42Any consolidation of the ERRC Hearing with the COPA 5 appeals would require the Tribunal to give directions to the County for notice with respect to a first CMC for OPA 5. This would have to be done on an expedited basis.

43Parties would be required to prepare a PO and Issues List and exchange witness statements amongst other things, all of which would have to be completed before Tuesday, November 2, 2021. There is also a likelihood that motions might be filed by the parties, which would require adjudication and decisions.

44Counsel for Nicholyn has argued that the inclusion of OPA 5 on the Issues List for the ERRC Hearing is indicative of the impact of OPA 5 on the ERRC Hearing. The Tribunal notes that the record indicates that neither the County nor MMAH agreed that OPA 5 is relevant to the Tribunal’s determination of the ERRC Hearing. These parties agreed to the inclusion of OPA 5 on the Issues List explicitly to avoid further delay to the ERRC Hearing through another contested issues list motion. The PO expressly provides that the identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the ERRC Hearing. The Tribunal is advised that MMAH does not intend to address OPA 5 at the ERRC Hearing, as it maintains the position that it is not relevant to the Tribunal’s determination of OPA 2 or the TOPA.

45The County has requested that the Tribunal allow the County to file a “Sur-Reply” to the Reply filed by Nicholyn on the grounds that several matters, including reference to Tribunal jurisprudence, were not raised in the original Notice of Motion and that the County without this Sur-Reply, would be prejudiced and denied an element of natural justice, since the Tribunal will not have its position on any of the newly-raised items. While the Tribunal has included the County’s Sur-Reply to the list of materials before it on this Motion, it did not find the Sur-Reply to be particularly relevant to its deliberation on the merits of the Motion and does not rely on it.

46The Tribunal finds therefore that the motion should be denied.

47It is noted that the County also seeks its costs of this Motion.

ORDER

48Accordingly, the Motion by Nicholyn is hereby denied. Any request for costs shall be made in writing in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

“R.G.M. Makuch”

R.G.M. MAKUCH VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.