Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: November 30, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002553
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 37(2) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.50
Applicant: Ministry of Transportation
Subject: Approval of Road Closing
Description: Road closing of ten municipal roads that intersect or run into the right-of-way of the King’s Highway 3 within the Town of Kingsville
Ministry File No.: Plan P-4088-0033 and Plan P-4095-0030
Property Address: King's Highway 3 intersecting with ten municipal roads
Municipality/UT: Kingsville/Essex
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002553
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002553
OLT Case Name: Ontario (Transportation) (Re)
Heard: November 2, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Ministry of Transportation | A. Pribetic |
| Linda and Henry Armstrong | J. Byrne |
DECISION DELIVERED BY D.S. Colbourne AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to the Decision
INTRODUCTION
1A video hearing was conducted on November 2, 2023.
2There were no other Parties, municipal or otherwise.
3Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) is proposing to widen Highway 3, to four lanes with a 15-metre (“m”) depressed median, and is in line with the controlled access aspect of proposing closures at several intersections. Although there are ten modifications proposed, the focus of the Parties and Participants was the T intersection proposed for the Cameron Side Road and 9th Concession Road. One of the Participants was concerned about the closure of the business at this intersection. The major concern is that the T intersection will prevent farm machinery from crossing there and will result in a longer, narrower and more urban route making it more difficult for the movement of farm machinery. There is an acknowledgement that this is a major farm community.
4Unfortunately, Joseph Byrne left the hearing before he cross examined the only witness Dan Green for the MTO and/or made argument.
5A Sherry Armstrong in an e-mail put it into context: “Joe (Byrne) is first a farmer …..then he became a lawyer.”
6Mr. Byrne was freewheeling and asked Mr. Green questions during his examination-in-chief by Mr. Pribetic.
7Mr. Byrne was participating as counsel to the Armstrongs and he cannot do that and become a farmer witness – he knows he cannot be both but It appears he was trying to do both. His background may not be tribunal-related, but that is basic.
8When I tried to intervene and give some direction, he became offended and very precipitately left the hearing. I don’t recall if Mr. Pribetic said anything in that conversation. In my lengthy career, I have never ever been accused of bias, certainly not before saying or writing anything on the matter.
9While Mr. Green’s evidence was not challenged, there were submissions by the Participants and a Sherry Armstrong. It was clear the issue is not being able to cross Highway 3 with farm machinery.
10His evidence stated “that Stop controlled intersections for the remainder of the intersections with Highway 3, Cameron Side Road and Concession Road 9, Marsh Road and Concession Road 8, Inman Side Road and South Talbot Road and Upcott Side Road are to be closed. These intersections do not have sufficient traffic to warrant traffic signals and there is sufficient capacity within the local road network to obtain access to and from Highway 3 at the existing and planned traffic signal controlled intersections with Highway 3. Enhancing safety within the Highway 3 corridor is the underlying justification for removing the intersection at Concession Rd. 9.”
11Mr. Green was acknowledged by Mr. Byrne as an expert at the commencement of Mr. Green’s evidence-in-chief.
12In addition, on the closing question, Mr. Green’s evidence is as follows:
Concession Road 9 intersects Highway 3 from the South and continues as Cameron Side Road North of Highway 3. Concession Road 9 is a paved, two lane rural road and it is controlled at Highway 3 with a stop sign.
Traffic counts at the intersection of Highway 3 and Concession Road 9 were collected in 2019. The 2021 TESR confirmed that this intersection does not have sufficient traffic to warrant a traffic signal and there is sufficient capacity within the local road network to obtain access to and from Highway 3.
13Enhancing safety within the Highway corridor is the underlying justification for removing the intersection at Concession Road 9. With the low volume of traffic on Concession Road 9 and the increasing and greater traffic on Highway 3, operational concerns that exist today, will persist and become more problematic in the future. The first justification is from the traffic analysis – traffic on Highway 3, which will continue to increase thereby reducing the number and duration of gaps to permit traffic to leave or enter the Highway at this stop controlled intersection. The second justification is the geometry of the intersection, where the greater distance to enter/cross the Highway, the operating speeds and the need to understand the speed, distance and gap of approaching traffic across a 15-m depressed median. This added complexity and risk, may cause collisions, at these intersections, and tend to be more severe and result in higher vehicle damage, injuries and sometimes fatalities.
14The third justification is the access provided to pedestrians and cyclists at unsignalized intersections, with the same complications in decision making for drivers.
15As Mr. Green stated, “it is a matter of safety with the widening of Highway 3.”
Decision
16Based on Mr. Green’s expert evidence, with no challenge or alternative, I approve of the application by Ministry of Transportation for all intersections on the widened Highway 3.
“D.S. Colbourne”
D.S. COLBOURNE
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.