2147925 Ontario Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town), 2022 CanLII 23500

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

March 21, 2022

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-001937

(Formerly PL170782)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

2147925 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 74-51 – Refusal or neglect of Town of Halton Hills to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Rural (RU) Zone

Proposed Zoning:

Site Specific – General Residential RG Special (RG-1) Zone and Recreation (OS1) Zone.

Purpose:

To permit the development of a 32 lot single detached residential subdivision

Property Address/Description:

W ½ 21, Concession 9

Municipality:

Town of Halton Hills

Municipality File No.:

D14ZBA09.006

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-001937

Legacy Case No.:

PL170782

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-001937

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL170782

OLT Case Name:

2147925 Ontario Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

2147925 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of the Town of Halton Hills to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the development of a 32 lot single detached residential subdivision

Property Address/Description:

W ½ 21, Concession 9

Municipality:

Town of Halton Hills

Municipality File No.:

D12SUB09.001

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-001954

Legacy Case No.:

PL170783

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-001937

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL170782

Heard:

January 25, 2022 by Video Hearing and March 1, 2022 by Telephone Conference Call

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

2147925 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”)

John Alati

Andy Margaritis

Town of Halton Hills (“Town”)

Jeffrey Wilker

Regional Municipality of Halton

Jeffrey Wilker

Hamlet of Glen Williams Residents Association Inc. (“the Association”)

Donald J. Robinson*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID L. LANTHIER on january 25 and march 1, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) conducted in these Appeals. For the reasons explained herein, at the first appearance on January 25, 2022, it was necessary to stand down and continue the CMC on the subsequent date of March 1, 2022.

2As background, a first Pre-Hearing Conference was conducted on November 17, 2017, where initial preliminary matters were addressed and confirmed in the Decision issued on November 30, 2017. At that time, the Association was granted Party status and that has again been confirmed at this CMC. Mr. Dave Woodward was previously granted Participant status but has since withdrawn and will no longer be involved in the hearing of the Appeals.

3A second Conference was scheduled for March 1, 2018 but that event was adjourned without a fixed date to permit internal reviews of the applications and an eventual resubmission made on May 3, 2021. The Applicant subsequently requested that the Appeals be brought back before the Tribunal for continued case management, and the hearing event of January 25, 2022 was accordingly set.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

4Discussions between the parties to resolve issues continue, and there is a strong likelihood that there will be a formal request for mediation, dependent upon the timing of the re-submission and the opportunity to seek instructions from Council during this election year. The Parties are aware of the pre-requisites for access to Tribunal-led mediation.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

5The Applicant initiated and provided a first draft of a Procedural Order in advance of the CMC on January 25, 2022, which was then reviewed by the Panel. The Panel expressed various concerns regarding the first draft of the Issues List and the parties were directed to consult further and re-draft the Issues List to address those concerns and return on March 1^st with revisions. The Issues List remains somewhat robust, and in some respects very technical, and it is hoped that continued discussions will result in the Issues List being further refined.

6After canvassing counsel, hearing dates were secured on the Tribunal’s calendar. With some additional requests for modifications, and with the benefit of the scheduled dates of the hearing and a final pre-hearing status hearing/CMC, counsel for the Applicant was to undertake the revision of the draft Procedural Order and Issues List and submit it to the Panel for final review.

7The Tribunal subsequently received and reviewed the revised draft of the Procedural Order and Issues List. Appended to this Decision as Attachment 1 is the Procedural Order, which will now govern all further pre-hearing procedural requirements and the hearing of the Appeals.

8The fixed dates for the hearing on the merits are now provided in the Procedural Order appended to this Decision and the coordinates for the hearings are set out below in this Decision.

9The hearing is scheduled as a video hearing. If an in-person hearing is proposed on a consent basis as an alternative form of hearing, the parties may, in advance of the hearing, provide details with respect to the proposed venue including all information as may be required at that time to ensure that the in-person hearing can be conducted safely, and in compliance with all requirements of the Tribunal and all applicable Provincial and health regulations, orders or directives relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal will determine the appropriate method of hearing based upon the information provided by the parties, and the Tribunal’s resources, but, in the absence of any further direction, the hearing of the Appeals shall proceed as directed herein.

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL (“TCC”) STATUS HEARING AND VIDEO HEARING COORDINATES

TCC Status Hearing – Thursday, January 12, 2023

10The TCC Status Hearing to review the draft hearing plan, will commence at 9 a.m. on Thursday, January 12, 2023, with the following dial-in instructions:

Individual(s) are directed to call 416-212-8012 or Toll Free 1-866-633-0848. When prompted, enter the code 4779874# to be connected to the call.  It is the responsibility of the person(s) participating in the call to ensure that they are properly connected to the call and at the correct time.  Questions prior to the call may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case. 

Hearing – Tuesday, February 21 to Friday, March 10, 2023

11The 13-day video hearing will commence on Tuesday, February 21, 2023, at 10 a.m. and continue to Friday, March 10, 2023, with the hearing standing down for one day on March 6, 2023.

12The Parties are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event each day to test their video and audio connections:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157

Access Code: 442-599-157

13For the video hearing, all Parties, witnesses or observers are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

14Persons who experience technical difficulties the GoToMeeting application, or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-455-1389 or +1 (647) 497-9391. The access codes are as indicated above.

15Individuals are directed to connect to each of the events on the assigned dates at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearings by TCC or by video hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time and have tested their own microphones and video cameras to ensure connectivity. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

16There will be no further notice with respect to each of the two hearing events, and the Panel Member is not seized on either the CMC/Status hearing or the hearing.

17The Tribunal so orders and provides these CMC directives for the purposes of the case management of this Appeal.

“David L. Lanthier”

DAVID L. LANTHIER

VICE-CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire 655 rue Bay, suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web: olt.gov.on.ca

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

2147925 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 74-51 – Refusal or neglect of Town of Halton Hills to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Rural (RU) Zone

Proposed Zoning:

Site Specific – General Residential RG Special (RG-1) Zone and Recreation (OS1) Zone.

Purpose:

To permit the development of a 32 lot single detached residential subdivision

Property Address/Description:

W ½ 21, Concession 9

Municipality:

Town of Halton Hills

Municipality File No.:

D14ZBA09.006

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-001937

Legacy Case No.:

PL170782

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-001937

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL170782

OLT Case Name:

2147925 Ontario Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

2147925 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of the Town of Halton Hills to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the development of a 32 lot single detached residential subdivision

Property Address/Description:

W ½ 21, Concession 9

Municipality:

Town of Halton Hills

Municipality File No.:

D12SUB09.001

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-001954

Legacy Case No.:

PL170783

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-001937

Legacy Lead Case No.:

PL170782

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the Parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video Hearing will begin on February 21, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties initial estimation for the length of the Hearing is 13 days. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday March 6, 2023. The Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlement on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conferences are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order (see Attachment 5 for the meaning of these terms).

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits or the modification is made on the consent of the parties, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited on either the Parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the Hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the Hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Video-Hearing-Guide-EN.html

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before November 14, 2022. For expert witnesses, a party is to include the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified together with providing a copy of the curriculum vitae of each proposed expert witness. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before November 29, 2022.

10. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting on or before December 19, 2022 to use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the Hearing. The experts shall prepare a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues including identifying any remaining issues in their respective discipline to be addressed at the Hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal on or before January 9, 2023.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the Hearing, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 20 on or before January 16, 2023. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the Hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 20.

12. A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before January 16, 2023, or the witness or participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the Party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence on or before January 16, 2023, as in Section 20. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence.

14. On or before January 30, 2023, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.

15. On or before January 30, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.

16. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10.

17. A Party who provides a witness’ written evidence to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the Hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

18. On or before January 11, 2023 the Parties shall prepare and file a draft Work Plan for discussion at the Case Management Conference to be conducted by Telephone Conference Call at 9:00 a.m. on January 12, 2023.

Subject to any further directions that may be given on January 12, 2023, on or before January 23, 2023, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing event.

19. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before February 6, 2023, and one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 20.

20. All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the Hearing event as soon as practicable. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide.

21. No adjournments or delays will be granted except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

22. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

Attachment 1 – Summary of Dates

DATE

EVENT

November 14, 2022

Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)

November 29, 2022

Last date to challenge identification of expert witness

December 19, 2022

Experts meeting

January 9, 2023

Experts Agreed Statement of Facts

January 11, 2023

Draft Work Plan filed with Tribunal

January 12 or 13, 2023 (Exact date to be confirmed by Tribunal)

Final organizational Case Management Conference

January 16, 2023

Exchange of Expert Witness Statements, Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

January 23, 2023

Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal

January 30, 2023

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

January 30, 2023

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

February 6, 2023

Finalize Joint Document Book

February 21, 2023

Hearing commences

Attachment 2 – List of Parties/Participants

PARTIES

1. 2147925 Ontario Inc.

Davies Howe LLP

425 Adelaide Street West, The Tenth Floor

Toronto, ON M5V 3C1

John Alati / Andy Margaritis

E-Mail: johna@davieshowe.com andym@davieshowe.com

Tel.: 416.977.7088

Fax: 416.977.8931

2. Town of Halton Hills

Thomson, Rogers Lawyers

Suite 3100, 390 Bay St.

Toronto, ON M5H 1W2

Jeffrey Wilker

Email: jwilker@thomsonrogers.com

Tel: 416.868.3118

Fax: 416.868.3134

3. Regional Municipality of Halton

Thomson, Rogers Lawyers

Jeffrey Wilker

(Contact details as set out in no. 2 above)

Hamlet of Glen Williams Residents Association Inc.

Donald J. Robinson

Attachment 3 – Issues List

Consolidated Issues List of The Town of Halton Hills and Region of Halton

1. Is the development proposal (rezoning and draft plan of subdivision) consistent with the PPS 2020, including policies 1.1.1 (a), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i), 1.1.3.2, 1.1.4.1, 1.1.4.2, 1.1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.6.6, 1.6.6.7, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3.6.2 and 3.2.2; in conformity with the Growth Plan including sections 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.9.6; in conformity with the ROP, including sections 58, 89, 99(4), 99(4.1),101(2), 105, 106, 145(23), 147(17), 147(18) and 187(10); in conformity with the Town’s OP, including sections C5, C6, C8, C10(b), F 1.3, F7.2.6, F7.2.10, G4.2 and G12.3(l); in conformity with the proposed Updated Secondary Plan, including sections H4.2, H4.3.2.3, H4.3.2.6, H4.3.3, H4.3.4.1, H4.3.4.2, H4.3.4.3, H4.3.4.4, H4.3.5, H4.3.6, H4.3.10.2, H4.3.11.3, H4.3.12, H4.5.3, H4.10.3, H4.10.8, H4.10.11 and schedule H4-3; -- or depending on issue #2 -- in conformity with the Current Secondary Plan, including sections H4.2, H4.3.3, H4.3.5, H4.3.6, H4.3.7, H4.3.8, H4.3.13, H4.5.3 and schedule H4-1?

See Note to Reader at the end of the issues list detailing abbreviations and status of Secondary Plan

2. Anticipating the proposed Updated Secondary Plan is in full force and effect as of the date of hearing thereby replacing the Current Secondary Plan, should any weight be given by the OLT to the policies of the Current Secondary Plan?

3. Does the draft plan of subdivision satisfactorily have regard to section 2 (a), (e), (f), (h), (h.1), (i), (o), (q) and (r)(iii); and address the criteria of section 51 (24) (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (k) of the Planning Act?

4. Does the proposed buffer conform with sections H.4.3.6 and H4.3.12 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan? What is the appropriate hamlet buffer width and is the buffer required to be gratuitously dedicated to the Town or is an easement sufficient? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H4.3.8 of the Current Secondary Plan?

5. Is the proposed future trail connection consistent with the PPS 2020, including policies 1.1.1 (f), (g), 1.5.1, and does it conform with sections H4.3.3, H4.3.10.2, H4.3.12, schedule H4-3 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan, and does it satisfactorily address the Town’s Active Transportation Master Plan, Map 2c? Is the proposed future trail connection as proposed good and proper planning? Is the block for the future trail connection required to be gratuitously dedicated to the Town or is an easement sufficient? What components of the trail system, including any sidewalk connection on Oak Ridge Drive, are required to be funded and/or built by the appellant? Depending on issue #2 is any weight to be given to section H4.3.3 and schedule H4-1 of the Current Secondary Plan?

6. Is the stormwater design consistent with policies 1.1.1 (c), (g), (i), 1.6.6.7 of the PPS 2020, in conformity with section C8 of the Town’s OP, in conformity with section H4.3.4.3 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan, have regard to section 51(24) including (i) of the Planning Act and does the stormwater design represent good engineering and planning practice? Is a continuous overland flow swale required to be provided in the storm sewer easement/future trail connection block to Street ‘A’ to avoid flooding impacts to Lot 21 and the existing residential property to the east? Should the grading and placement of storm structures ensure that they are designed to accommodate the placement of a walkway in the future trail connection block? Is the grading and drainage of the lots through the private storm sewer system on 12187 Eighth Line appropriate and permissible? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H4.3.7 of the Current Secondary Plan?

7. Is the proposed grading plan consistent with policies 1.1.1 (c), (g) and (i) of the PPS 2020, in conformity with section C8 of the Town’s OP, in conformity with section H4.3.2.6 and H4.3.4.3 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan, have regard to section 51(24) (h) of the Planning Act and does the proposed grading plan adequately show sufficient grading information to ensure the orderly development of the development proposal (e.g., existing grades at all lot corners and mid lot, outlets for side yard swales on existing lots, minimum swale grade of 2% and maximum slope of 3:1)? Does the grading and drainage design appropriately mitigate impacts to existing trees and vegetation and accommodate required protective buffers given the location of rear lot swales and catch basins? If not what redesign of the lot layout and/or conditions are necessary to address such mitigation (e.g., revisions to environmental implementation report, tree preservation plan and grading plan)? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to sections H4.3.7 of the Approved Secondary Plan?

8. Is the sidewalk design satisfactory and does it accord with good and proper engineering and planning practices, including being consistent with policies 1.1.1(c), (f) of the PPS 2020?

9. Is the design of the stormwater management pond block consistent with policy 1.1.1(f) and 1.5.1 of the PPS 2020, and does the design conform with section H4.3.12 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan and is the design sufficient to be revised to include accommodation of passive recreational use (e.g., pedestrian trails/overlooks) in coordination with the stormwater management design and maintenance standards and, appropriately buffer/screen lots from the stormwater infrastructure through landscaping? If not, what redesign is necessary?

10. Are the mitigation of offsite construction impacts consistent with policy 1.1.1 (c) for the PPS 2020 and does the mitigation address and conform with section C10(b) of the Town OP and the proposed Updated Secondary Plan including sections H4.3.2.3 and H4.3.4.4? Are potential offsite impacts for construction, including extending sanitary sewer services along Wildwood Road and its reconstruction, appropriately mitigated, and if so, what conditions are necessary to address such mitigation e.g., a construction management plan that amongst other matters: a) Is informed by technical issues encountered by the Town on recent reconstruction of Wildwood Road; b) Addresses continuity of services e.g. gas, electricity & water to residents on Wildwood Road; c) Minimizes disruptions to residents for access to their properties; and d) Establishes an erosion and sediment control plan?

11. How will the development proposal implement all reasonable measures to limit construction dewatering rates and avoid long-term dewatering (e.g., by keeping basement elevations above measured groundwater table elevations) given the draft plan of subdivision is located in the WHPA-Q (moderate risk score) in the CTC Source Protection Plan or, re-infiltrate any dewatering discharge where appropriate; and is such proposal consistent with policy section 1.1.1(c) of PPS 2020, in conformity with section C6 of the Town OP and section H4.3.6 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan? How will the development proposal meet the SWG-11 policy of the CTC Source Protection Plan, that will apply to the proposed stormwater management pond when the Environmental Compliance Approval application is filed and reviewed by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H4.3.5 of the Current Secondary Plan?

12. Can the development proposal be serviced with water and wastewater services to the required standards including being consistent with policies 1.1.1 (g), 1.6.6.1 and 1.6.6.6 of the PPS 2020, being in conformity with sections 58, 89, 187(10) of ROP and being in conformity of section H.4.3.4.1, H4.3.4.2 and H4.3.4.4 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan? Is the Functional Servicing Report and supporting technical work satisfactory to support the provision of services and the approval of the development proposal? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to sections H4.3.5 of the Current Secondary Plan?

13. Has appropriate modelling and analysis been undertaken to show the potential impacts of the development proposal and the proposed local pumping strategy to the existing low water pressure in the broader Wildwood area including being consistent with policies 1.1.1 (g), 1.6.6.1 and1.6.6.6 of PPS 2020, sections 58, 89 and 187(10) of ROP and sections H4.3.4.1, H4.3.4.2 and H4.3.4.4 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan. Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H4.3.5 of the Current Secondary Plan?

14. Is the appellant required or willing to be responsible for the full costs associated with the installation, construction and decommissioning of the temporary Booster Station option referenced in the Functional Servicing Report? If not, what are the implications of such determination, including consideration of policies 1.6.6.1 and 1.6.6.6 of the PPS 2020, sections 58, 89 and 187 (10) of ROP, and sections H4.3.4.1, H4.3.4.2 and H4.3.4.4 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H4.3.5 of the Current Secondary Plan?

15. As the development proposal does not have allocated water and sewage capacity, are there appropriate planning mechanisms in place to permit the approval of the development proposal or is such draft approval premature, including consideration of policies 1.1.1.(g), 1.6.6.1 and 1.6.6.6 of the PPS 2020, sections 58, 89(12), 89(13) of ROP, and section H.4.3.4.1, H4.3.4.2, and H4.3.4.4 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H.4.3.5 of the Current Secondary Plan?

16. Are potential offsite impacts for surface water and for hydrogeology, including addressing off site wells and septic systems, appropriately mitigated, and if so, what conditions are necessary to address such mitigation and more particularly:

a. Have potential impacts to groundwater been satisfactorily addressed?

b. Have the impacts related to any proposed temporary or permanent dewatering been fully assessed and satisfactorily addressed?

c. Has a groundwater and well monitoring plan been developed by the appellant that adequately addresses Regional requirements and concerns expressed by residents?

d. Is the appellant required to enter into an agreement with the Region of Halton to ensure well monitoring occurs and to ensure that any well complaints are addressed satisfactorily, including providing well restoration/redevelopment of water supplies for residents, if deemed necessary by a Region designated hydrogeologist?

e. Have the potential offsite impacts been addressed consistent with policies 1.1.1 (c), 2.2.1, 2.2.2 of the PPS 2020, and such potential offsite impacts in conformity with sections 58, 105, 145(23) and 187(10) of ROP, section C5 of the Town’s OP and section H4.5.3 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan?

f. Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H.4.3.5(f) and H4.3.5 of the Current Secondary Plan?

17. Is there agreement on the Town’s requirement to provide cash-in-lieu for parkland based on the 5% provision pursuant to the Planning Act. If not, what weight should the OLT give to sections 51.1 (3), (3.1) of the Planning Act; sections F7.2.6 and F7.2.10 of the Town OP; section H4.10.11 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan; and sections 3(a) and 4 of Town By-law No. 2002-0152 (Conveyance of Land or Payment of Cash-in-lieu of Parkland for Public Park Purpose)?

18. What warning or notice clauses are to be conditions to be registered on title for any proposed lots adjacent to an agricultural operation, warning of potential impacts of noise, dust and odour as a result of normal farm practices, including consideration of being consistent with policies 1.1.1 (c) and 2.3.6.2 of the PPS 2020 and being in conformity with sections 99(4), 99(4.1) and 101(2) of ROP?

19. Is the appellant required to provide an updated Phase I Environmental Site Assessment as a condition of draft approval, to demonstrate that the subject property is of a condition suitable for the proposed use and in order to be consistent with policies 1.1.1(c) and 3.2.2 of the PPS 2020, and to conform with 147(17), 147(18), and 187(10) of ROP, and section G12.3(l) of the Town’s OP?

20. Have issues raised by all public authorities and agencies, including Credit Valley Conservation (“CVC”) been addressed? Have the issues identified and provided to the appellant in the Town’s consolidated response to the second resubmission – Town Planning letter dated October 20, 2021 including attachments from internal and external review – provided by email from Town Planning to the appellant’s planner on November 5, 2021 been satisfactorily addressed by the appellant? If not, which issues should be reduced to conditions of draft plan approval?

21. Is the Zoning By-law, including the form of the Zoning By-law and its provisions (including Holding Zone provisions) (e.g., maximum height), appropriate and satisfactory and does it address the requirements of the section 34 and 36 of the Planning Act, and is it in conformity with section G4.2 of the Town OP and section H4.3.11.3, H4.6.3 and H4.10.3 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H.4.3.13 of the Current Secondary Plan?

22. Are conditions of draft plan of subdivision approval appropriate to be issued in accordance with section 51(25) of the Planning Act to address the subdivision criteria as set out in section 51(24) of the Planning Act together with the subdivision policy provisions of section 187(10) of the ROP, section F1.3 of the Halton Hills Official Plan and section H4.10.8 of the proposed Updated Secondary Plan? Depending on issue #2, is any weight to be given to section H.4.3 of the Current Secondary Plan?

Note to Reader: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which the issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination at the hearing will be matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Note to Reader: The following notations are used in the issues list to reference planning documents:

Provincial Policy Statement 2020: PPS 2020

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe: Growth Plan

Region of Halton Official Plan: ROP

Town of Halton Hills Official Plan: Town OP

Glen Williams Secondary Plan OPA 2: Current Secondary Plan

Glen Williams Secondary Plan OPA 44: Proposed Updated Secondary Plan

At the time of preparation of this issues list, the Proposed Updated Secondary Plan was adopted by the Town on October 4, 2021. The Updated Secondary Plan has since been before the Region for approval and subsequent Notice of Decision.

Attachment 4 – Order of Evidence

1. 2147935 Ontario Inc.
2. Town of Halton Hills
3. Regional Municipality of Halton
4. Hamlet of Glen Williams Residents Association Inc.
5. 2147935 Ontario Inc. (Reply, if any)

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other Parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a Party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the Party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a Party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the Case Management Conference, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material. Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a Party intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

Additional Information:

Summons: A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the Parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

The order of examination of witnesses: is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the Party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any Party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by Parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the Party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.