The Centennial Group Inc. v. New Tecumseth (Town), 2022 CanLII 37684

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 02, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001141

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: The Centennial Group Inc.

Subject: Consent

Property Address/Description: 5626 & 5750 3rd Line

Municipality: Town of New Tecumseth

Municipal File No.: B06-21

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001141

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001141

OLT Case Name: The Centennial Group Inc. v. New Tecumseth (Town)

Heard: March 22, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
The Centennial Group Inc.	Michael Paiva and Gwen Croser
Town of New Tecumseth	Colleen Butler

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Centennial Group Inc. ("Appellant") applied for a Consent to sever 10.9 hectares ("ha") of land located on the eastern portion of the property located at 5750 3rd Line and merge it with the adjacent property at 5626 3rd Line. Both parcels of land are, and will continue to be, used for agricultural purposes. On May 27, 2021, the Committee of Adjustment ("Committee") for the Town of New Tecumseth ("Town") refused the application on the recommendation of the Town's planning staff. That decision is now the subject of the appeal before the Tribunal, pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act ¹("Act").

2On Schedule A of the County of Simcoe Official Plan ("COP"), 5626 3rd Line ("5626") is designated as Agriculture, while the majority of 5750 3rd Line ("5750") is designated as Agriculture with a woodlot and watercourse on the northwest corner designated Greenlands. Both properties are designated Agriculture and Environmental Protection One (EP1) and Environmental Protection Two Overlay (EP2) on Schedule A of the Town's Official Plan ("TOP") and both are zoned Agricultural (A1) on Schedule F of Town Zoning By-law No. 2014-126 ("ZBL").

3The Appellant owns the property at 5750, which is currently 43.5 ha in size with an existing agricultural operation in the form of a cattle farm thereon. There are no buildings or structures on the property, save and except for a livestock corral/loading dock, which is only accessible from a laneway on the adjacent property at 5626. The property at 5626 is owned by Craigmore Group Inc. ("Craigmore") and is also currently 43.5 ha in size. It contains a single detached dwelling along with a garage and multiple agricultural buildings and there is an existing agricultural operation thereon in the form of a sheep farm, which utilizes the aforementioned livestock corral located at 5750.

4Were the Consent to be approved, the lot boundary between the two properties would shift and a 10.9 ha portion of the land at 5750 (including the livestock corral) would be conveyed to 5626. The result would be that the size of the property at 5626 would increase from 43.5 ha to 54.4 ha and the property at 5750 would accordingly decrease from 43.5 ha to 32.6 ha.

5The proposal is intended to facilitate a more efficient agricultural operation at 5626 by increasing the lot size allowing the sheep farm to become self-sufficient. At present, due to the current size of the lot relative to the size of the agricultural operation, Craigmore must transport manure offsite to other rented farmland in order to satisfy Minimum Distance Separation ("MDS") requirements and must further rely upon an arrangement with the Appellant to use the livestock corral located at 5750.

ISSUES

6The parties agreed that, in this instance, for the purposes of s. 53(1), a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the Municipality.

7The issues in this appeal are whether the proposed Consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS"); conforms to: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ("GP"); the COP; the TOP; is compliant with the ZBL; and whether it addresses applicable statutory requirements in s. 51(24) of the Act.

8In order to make a determination on the issues above, the Tribunal must also answer the following questions:

a) can the proposed lot boundary adjustment be considered minor?

b) would the proposed lot boundary adjustment result in the creation of new lots?

This is because there are specific PPS, COP and TOP policies (to be discussed in further detail below) which speak to permitting a minor lot boundary adjustment for legal or technical reasons, provided such an adjustment does not result in the creation of a new lot.

9The Tribunal heard testimony in support of the Appellant's position on these issues from John Cox, who was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in rural land use planning. In support of the Town's position, the Tribunal heard testimony from Jennifer Best, who was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

10The Appellant takes the position that the application under appeal seeks merely to shift the lot line between 5750 and 5626, allowing a more efficient agricultural operation to carry on at 5626. The additional hectarage proposed to be added to 5626 would realize two important benefits:

a) it would allow the existing agricultural operation to satisfy MDS requirements without relying on other lands; and

b) it would eliminate the need for Craigmore to retain an arrangement with the Appellant to allow for the utilization of that portion of the land at 5750 which contains the livestock corral.

11It was submitted that the proposed lot boundary adjustment is both numerically minor (at 10.9 ha) and minor in terms of potential impact, because the remaining parcel of land at 5750 will remain among the largest in the area and will not be adversely affected with respect to current and future agricultural viability/flexibility.

12In the Appellant's view, the foregoing is representative of good planning and achieves specific objectives in the TOP which speak to ensuring that agriculture remains an integral part of the Town economy and supporting the protection of lands which have the potential to be used for agricultural purposes to ensure that farming operations can operate with the maximum degree of flexibility and efficiency.

13The Town's position is that the proposed severance, notwithstanding that it does not result in the creation of additional lots, nevertheless results in the creation of new lots. This is because, as a consequence of the lot line adjustment, the existing lot fabric in the area would be altered with 5750 and 5626 having different areas and frontages.

14From a numeric standpoint, it was argued that that a severance of almost 11 ha resulting in the retained lot at 5750 being less than 40 ha is not minor and would not be in conformity with the COP and the TOP, which address the creation of new agricultural lots and require such lots to be a minimum of 40 ha. It was submitted that the proposed boundary adjustment would leave 5750 undersized and should be considered lot fragmentation, something which is specifically discouraged in the TOP.

15With respect to impact, it was argued that altering two lots which currently meet the 40 ha minimum to increase the agricultural viability of the operation at 5626 comes at the expense of compromising the future agricultural viability of 5750 and could result in adverse impacts upon the agricultural system as a whole, an impact which cannot be considered minor.

16Based on all the foregoing, the Town argued that the Consent should not be approved, leaving 5750 and 5626 intact at their current sizes and configurations.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

17Both planners were largely aligned with respect to the specific policies applicable to the matter under appeal, but differed in their interpretations thereof. Mr. Cox's interpretations led him to opine that the proposed lot boundary adjustment does not create new lots and is minor in nature. He further opined the proposal is representative of good planning, achieving agricultural objectives set out in local, regional and provincial policies by improving the existing operation at 5626 while maintaining the current and long-term agricultural viability of 5750.

18In contrast, Ms. Best opined that the proposal is not minor and constitutes lot creation, which does not achieve consistency/conformity with provincial, regional and local policies. In her view, the effort to improve the agricultural viability of 5626 will leave 5750 as an undersized agricultural lot compromising future agricultural use which is not good planning. Ultimately, she recommended the Tribunal dismiss the appeal to leave the lots at their present sizes, which meet the minimum hectarage requirements set out in the COP and TOP.

The PPS and GP

19Mr. Cox provided an overview of applicable PPS policies including, but not limited to policy 2.3, which speaks to protecting prime agricultural areas for long term agricultural use; policy 2.3.3.2, which speaks to promoting and protecting all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses; and policy 2.3.4.2, which permits lot adjustments in prime agricultural areas for legal or technical reasons. He drew the Tribunal's attention to the PPS definition of "legal or technical reasons" which,

...means severances for purposes such as easements, corrections of deeds, quit claims, and minor boundary adjustments, which do not result in the creation of a new lot.

In his view, two existing lots will simply have the boundary between them shifted, rendering the agricultural operation at 5626 more efficient and, because no additional lots are proposed, there is no resulting lot creation.

20Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mr. Cox took the Tribunal to policy 2.3.4.1 which, while generally discouraging lot creation, permits same for agricultural uses provided the lots are of a sufficient size appropriate for the type of agricultural uses common in the area and sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operations. In his view, following the proposed lot boundary adjustment, both 5750 and 5626 would still be among the largest agricultural parcels in an area, which is characterized by a substantial number of agricultural lots less than 40 ha in size. While 5750 would decrease to approximately 32.5 ha or 80 acres, Mr. Cox testified that it would not be undersized or limited in terms of agricultural flexibility but instead, would remain appropriately sized to accommodate current and future agricultural operations and changes in the size or type thereof.

21Mr. Cox noted the GP does not include specific policies in relation to lot line adjustments but nevertheless opined that the proposal conforms/does not conflict with the GP. He referenced s. 4.2.6. and, in particular, s. 4.2.6.2, which speaks to protecting prime agricultural areas for long-term agricultural use and opined that the proposal achieves this goal.

22In contrast, Ms. Best opined that the lot boundary adjustment must be viewed as creating new lots, given the result will be two lots with altered sizes and dimensions. She pointed out that 5750 includes a woodlot and watercourse (EP1 areas) where farming is discouraged and urged the Tribunal to consider the cumulative effect of an 11 ha severance in light of 6 + ha of EP1 area which, in her view, combine to increase the impact of the proposed severance on the viability of 5750.

23Ms. Best drew the Tribunal's attention to the wording in PPS policy s. 2.3.2, which encourages planning authorities to use an agricultural system approach to maintain and enhance the geographic continuity of the agricultural land base and the functional and economic connections to the agri-food network. She noted that this approach is designed to ensure the whole agricultural system is protected and is similarly promoted in s. 4.2.6 of the GP, which defines 'agricultural system' as a group of interconnected elements creating a viable, thriving agricultural sector with two components – a land base comprised of prime agricultural areas and rural lands that together create a continuous productive land base for agriculture; and an agri-food network that includes infrastructure, services and assets important to the viability of the agri-food sector.

24Like Mr. Cox, Ms. Best referenced the PPS citing policy s. 2.3.4.1 and acknowledged the agricultural operation at 5626 would realize improvement from the proposed boundary adjustment, but opined that there would be a concomitant reduction to the long-term agricultural viability of 5750, which would not be consistent with s. 2.3.4.1 a), which permits lot creation in prime agricultural areas provided such lots are sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes. Conceding that the current agricultural operation at 5750 would not likely be impacted, she nevertheless expressed concern that, at some point in the future, the smaller lot size could limit expansion or changes to the agricultural operation, noting it might not be able to meet MDS requirements and nutrient management practices.

25She referenced GP policy 4.2.6.5, which encourages the retention of existing lots of record for agricultural uses, noting the policy is tied to both PPS and GP objectives of protecting long term agricultural uses and the agricultural system as a whole. In her opinion, such objectives cannot be achieved if the existing lots of record are not retained in their present dimensions and sizes.

COP, TOP and ZBL

26In Mr. Cox's opinion the lot boundary adjustment conforms with the COP for analogous reasons provided in his evaluation of the proposal against the PPS. He provided an overview of applicable COP policies, including s. 3.3.5 which, like the PPS, states:

Consents for the purposes of legal or technical reasons² and consolidation of land holdings may be permitted but shall not be for the purpose of creating new lots except as otherwise permitted in this Plan, Provincial policies and legislation

He further noted policy 3.6.5 speaks to protecting prime agricultural areas for long-term agricultural use as well as promoting and protecting all types, sizes and intensities of agricultural uses. In his view, the proposal achieves such objectives.

27He drew the Tribunal's attention to policy 3.6.7, which discourages lot creation in the Agricultural designation, but permits same for agricultural uses, stating that the new lots for agricultural uses should not be less than 40 ha. Again, because Mr. Cox does not view this as a situation in which new lots are being created, he opined this policy is not applicable.

28In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Cox provided an overview of applicable TOP policies, and expressed the view that the proposal conforms thereto. He referenced policy 2.3 b) i) and ii):

The objectives for role and function of non-urban areas are to:

i. Ensure that agriculture remains an integral part of the economy of the Town;

ii. Support the protection of lands that have the potential of being used for agricultural purposes from incompatible development where possible, to ensure that farming operations can operate with the maximum degree of flexibility and efficiency;

and opined that such objectives are achieved in this instance

29For the most part, Mr. Cox's evidence with respect to the TOP focused upon policies specific to the rural/agricultural area in s. 6, including objectives found at s. 6.2.1, which speak to protecting land suitable for agricultural production from fragmentation, development and land uses unrelated to agriculture, as well as promotion of the agricultural industry and associated activities and enhancing their capacity to contribute to the economy of the Town. He reiterated the agricultural use of both 5750 and 5626 will be maintained while enhancing the capacity of 5626 and opined the boundary adjustment would not result in fragmentation, given that 5750 would remain one of the larger agricultural parcels in the area.

30In Mr. Cox's view, the most applicable policy of the TOP having regard to the specific circumstances of this case is s. 6.2.1 h) (Farm Consolidations), which states:

In order to foster the growth of the agricultural industry in the Town, the consolidation of farms into larger and more efficient operations is encouraged. In this regard, the consolidation of two adjacent farm parcels or a boundary adjustment that increases the viability of a farm parcel is permitted provided no new lot is created.

He opined the foregoing is exactly what is proposed in this instance – a lot boundary adjustment which increases the viability of 5626 and does not result in the creation of a new lot.

31In addition, he referenced policy 6.2.1 g) (Other Types of Consents), noting it uses the same wording as PPS policy 2.3.4.2 and COP policy 3.3.5 permitting consents for legal or technical reasons...and minor boundary adjustments which do not result in the creation of new lots. He opined that the application is a minor lot boundary adjustment which does not result in the creation of a new lot.

32Although, in his view, policy 6.2.1 f) (Creation of New Lots From Agricultural Lands) is inapplicable, he nevertheless reviewed same, noting it permits the creation of new lots, provided the lot is to be severed to create a farm and both the retained and severed parcels each have a lot area of no less than approximately 40 ha. He noted the use of the word approximately affords some measure of flexibility with respect to the 40 ha minimum. Moreover, he drew the Tribunal's attention to policy 10.22 (Interpretation), which recognizes the OP is intended as a guide and permits flexibility in interpretation thereof, provided the general intent is maintained. Based on the foregoing, even if the Tribunal were to accept that the application under appeal results in the creation of new lots, Mr. Cox opined the proposal would nevertheless remain in conformity with s. 6.2.1 f) as well as the TOP in general.

33While acknowledging both the COP and the TOP reference 40 ha, Mr. Cox stressed that an assessment of whether lot boundary adjustment is minor should not be strictly a numeric exercise but rather, should focus upon the concept of impact. In his view, there is an immediate positive impact to 5626, which will see improved agricultural operations and no negative impact to 5750, which will remain one of the largest parcels of land in the area capable of supporting current and future agricultural operations and expansions.

34Finally, Mr. Cox took the Tribunal to the applicable portions of the ZBL, pointing out that although both the COP and TOP discuss minimum lot sizes of 40 ha, there is no corresponding minimum lot area specified in the ZBL. In his view, had it been the intention of the Municipality to require a minimum lot area of 40 ha, the ZBL should have included such a requirement. On a review of the criteria in the ZBL, Mr. Cox noted that should the application be approved, both lots would continue to be compliant with all applicable zoning provisions.

35With respect to the COP, Ms. Best also referenced policy 3.3.5, noting that consolidation of land holdings while permitted, shall not be for the purpose of creating new lots. She drew attention to policy 3.6.7, focusing upon the 40 ha minimum and opined that 40 ha is reflective what the County considers to be an appropriately sized lot to ensure long term agricultural flexibility. Based on the foregoing, it is her view that the proposal does not conform to the COP, as the consolidation of land holdings designed to benefit 5626 would result in the creation of two new lots, one of which would be undersized at less than the specified minimum of 40 ha.

36Similar to Mr. Cox, Ms. Best's evaluation of the proposed lot boundary adjustment against the TOP focused upon the policies in s. 6 (The Rural/Agricultural Area). Reiterating her opinion that the proposal would result in the creation of an undersized and less agriculturally viable lot at 5750, she drew the Tribunal's attention to policy 6.2.1 a) iii), which speaks to protecting land suitable for agricultural production from fragmentation, development and land uses unrelated to agriculture. As there is no definition of fragmentation in the TOP, Ms. Best offered her interpretation, which is any reduction in the size of a lot that would have the effect of making it less agriculturally viable.

37In the opinion of Ms. Best, the proposal does not conform to the TOP, given that 5750 would not meet the minimum lot size of 40 ha set out in policy 6.2.1 f) (Creation of New Lots from Agricultural Lands). She urged the Tribunal to interpret the use of the word "approximately" in this policy as being intended by the Town to account for circumstances beyond the control of a landowner whereby the municipality takes a portion of land for infrastructure purposes such as a road widening or railway, leaving the lot below the 40 ha minimum.

38While Ms. Best acknowledged that policy 6.2.1 g) (Other Types of Consents) does not reference a 40 ha minimum, she nevertheless opined a boundary adjustment leaving a lot below the size determined by the County to be viable for agriculture (40 ha) could not be considered minor for the purposes this policy. She similarly acknowledged that 6.2.1 h) (Farm Consolidations) makes no reference to a 40 ha minimum, but noted the policy speaks to viability and, in her view increasing the viability of one parcel while decreasing the viability of another does not meet the intent of this section. She opined that this policy would be met if the two lots were being consolidated into only one, more viable lot.

39Under cross examination, Ms. Best offered the opinion that any lot boundary adjustment (even 1 metre in size) would result lot creation and, similar to her interpretation of the word "approximately" in policy 6.2.1 f), she opined that the only circumstance in which a lot boundary adjustment would not result in lot creation would be one in which the municipality takes land beyond the control of a landowner for road widenings, etc.

40Finally, while Ms. Best generally agreed with Mr. Cox's assessment of the ZBL conceding that the proposal technically complies therewith, she opined that because no minimum lot area is specified in the ZBL, guidance in this regard must be taken from the TOP, which does specify a minimum lot size of 40 ha. Ultimately, Ms. Best's view is that the proposed lot boundary adjustment does not fit any of the scenarios set out in TOP s. 6.2.1 and does not conform to the TOP, the COP, the GP and is not consistent with the PPS.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

41The Tribunal generally preferred the evidence and opinions of Mr. Cox and finds the proposed lot boundary adjustment represents farm consolidation of the type described in s. 6.2.1 h) of the TOP, which does not include a minimum lot size requirement.

h) Farm Consolidations

In order to foster the growth of the agricultural industry in the Town, the consolidation of farms into larger and more efficient operations is encouraged. In this regard, the consolidation of two adjacent farm parcels or a boundary adjustment that increases the viability of a farm parcel is permitted provided no new lot is created.

42Ms. Best opined that the proposed lot adjustment would meet the foregoing policy if the two lots were being completely merged into one, but because two lots will remain with one decreasing in size, this policy is not met. While lot creation is not defined in any of the policies before the Tribunal, Ms. Best's opinion is that any alteration to lot area/frontage (even a 1 metre lot line adjustment) results in the creation of a new lot and therefore, the proposal before the Tribunal involving a 10.9 ha severance constitutes lot creation. In her view, only minor lot boundary adjustments initiated by the municipality beyond the control of the property owner for purposes such as a road widening do not result in lot creation.

43There seems to be no scenario under Ms. Best's analysis which would allow 5626 to become more efficient through lot boundary adjustment and more broadly, no scenario in which lot boundary adjustment of any size for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of agricultural operations would ever be permitted, given that any adjustment at the behest of an owner, in her view, constitutes lot creation. The Tribunal finds such an analysis to be odds with the specific wording in s. 6.2.1 h), which clearly speaks not only to situations where two lots might be consolidated into one, but also to the present situation, wherein a boundary adjustment is sought for the purpose of increasing the viability of a farm parcel.

44While by no means determinative on the issue of lot creation, the Tribunal considered it noteworthy that the Town planning report, which was reviewed and endorsed by Ms. Best, specifically states that no lot creation is proposed and no development³ or site alteration is proposed. Moreover, the Committee's Notice of Decision specifies no new lot is to be created and County comments on the application also indicate no new lot is proposed.

45Based on all the foregoing, the Tribunal preferred the opinion of Mr. Cox, that the current proposal represents a boundary adjustment for the purpose of increasing the viability of 5626 which does not result in lot creation, fitting squarely within policy 6.2.1 h).

46Ms. Best's opinion with respect to the potential for impact to 5750 as a result of the proposed decrease in lot size was admittedly speculative, resting entirely on the 40 ha minimum in the COP and TOP and her view that decreasing 5750 to anything less than 40 ha would leave it "undersized" for agricultural purposes, especially in light of the 6 + ha of EP 1 land upon which farming is discouraged. On this point, the Tribunal considered it significant that the Town staff report did not raise any concerns in relation to the impact of the existence of EP1 lands on the proposal, nor did the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority ("NVCA") have any concerns with the approval of the application. It was also considered significant that Ms. Best admitted neither the Town nor the County recommended or required any type of agricultural impact study in relation to the proposal's effect on the viability of 5750. She conceded there was no specific evidence that 5750 would be limited in terms of future viability for any of the agricultural uses enumerated in the PPS, save and except for a possibility that, at some point in the future, the ability to meet MDS requirements might be constrained. Finally, she acknowledged were this to be the case, 5750 could do exactly what 5626 does currently, which is to rent farmland elsewhere in order to meet MDS requirements.

47In light of all the foregoing, the Tribunal preferred the opinion of Mr. Cox (who has extensive experience in rural land use planning) that the proposal would leave 5750 as one of the largest agricultural lots in the area, capable of supporting the current agricultural operation while maintaining flexibility for future expansions and/or changes in use. On that basis, the Tribunal considers the proposed boundary adjustment to be minor both numerically and in terms of impact.

48Finally, in the event the Tribunal erred in finding the proposal does not result in lot creation or in finding that the proposal constitutes farm consolidation under TOP policy 6.2.1 h), it is nevertheless in agreement with Mr. Cox, that the reduction of 5750 below 40 ha is not fatal to the proposal's conformity with local and regional policies, given the flexibility built into the language thereof with respect to the 40 ha minimum ("approximately", "should not be less than", etc.), as well as TOP policy 10.22, which permits flexibility in policy interpretation provided the general intent is maintained. Given objectives which clearly speak to promotion and long-term protection of agricultural lands and the encouragement of efficiencies in agricultural operations and the evidence of Mr. Cox, the Tribunal is satisfied that if the proposal were to result in lot creation, the general intent is maintained even with 5750 being less than 40 ha in size.

49Based on the totality of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is persuaded that the proposed lot boundary adjustment is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the GP, the COP and the TOP and complies with the ZBL. On the foregoing findings, the Tribunal is satisfied that the requirement in s. 51(24) c) of conformity with applicable Official Plans is met. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal has regard for other applicable criteria in s. 51(24) notably, (a) the effect of the severance on matters of Provincial interest; (b) whether the proposed severance is premature or in the public interest; (d) suitability of the land for the purposes of the proposed severance; and (f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots.

50With respect to the effect of the severance on matters of Provincial interest, the Tribunal accepts the opinion of Mr. Cox that the adjustment results in a consolidation of prime agricultural land which will enhance the agricultural operation at 5626 while maintaining the flexibility of 5750, thereby ensuring the protection of the Province's agricultural resources. For similar reasons, the Tribunal finds the proposal to be in the public interest, as both 5626 and 5750 will remain agriculturally viable to provide current and future support for the Town's economy and there will be an immediate improvement to the agricultural operation at 5626, which will become capable of meeting MDS requirements. Because the use of the lots is not changing and the severance is intended to promote and protect these two prime agricultural lots and the operations thereon, the Tribunal is satisfied that the land is suitable for the purposes of the proposed severance. Finally, with reference to Mr. Cox's testimony that the surrounding area has a significant number of lots less than 40 ha in size, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed dimensions of the lots following the severance are appropriate.

ORDER

51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given.

"S. Braun"

S. BRAUN

MEMBER

"S. Bobka"

S. BOBKA

MEMBER

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.

Footnotes

1. 1R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
2. 2The COP definition of legal or technical reasons is identical to that of the PPS referenced above at paragraph 19.
3. 3The TOP defines 'development' as the creation of a new lot (emphasis added), a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures.