Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 21, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000089
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Blueland Farms Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the establishment of a gravel pit on the subject property
Reference Number: POPA 2013 -0002
Property Address: 17736 Heart Lake Rd, Part Lot 12, Concessions 2 (EHS)
Municipality/UT: Town of Caledon/ Region of Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000089
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000089
OLT Case Name: Blueland Farms Ltd. v. Caledon (Town of)
Heard: December 5, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Blueland Farms Ltd. | A. Burton |
| Town of Caledon | C. Barnett |
| Region of Peel | R. Godley |
| Niagara Escarpment Commission | D. Kappos |
| Richard Pilosof | J. Ayres, E. Chapple |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE ON DECEMBER 5, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to an appeal filed under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act by Blueland Farms Ltd. (the “Applicant”) from the failure of the Town of Caledon to make a decision within the statutory timeframe on an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) with respect to the lands municipally known as 17736 Heart Lake Road (the “Subject Lands”).
2The general nature of the Applicant’s undertaking is to permit aggregate extraction on part of the Subject Lands, both above and below the water table. The Subject Lands are a 40.5 hectares lot on the west side of Heart Lake Road.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS
3The Tribunal was in receipt of three Participant Status requests from the following individuals: Robert Shapton, Sandy Kang-Gil/Manjinder Gill, and Ezra Satok-Wolman. Each reside in the vicinity of the subject lands and are opposed to the OPA. Their statements speak to concerns related to the proposed gravel pit’s impacts on, among other things, health and safety, the environment, and real property values to adjacent lands.
4The Parties did not object to granting these Participant Status requests. The Tribunal hereby grants Participant Status to Robert Shapton, Sandy Kang-Gil/Majinder Gill, and Ezra Satok-Wolman.
CONSOLIDATED HEARING WITH RELATED APPEALS
5Since the last CMC, the Applicant filed an appeal (OLT-23-001202) with the Tribunal pursuant to s. 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”), for the refusals by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) to issue development permit applications P/E/2017-2018/408 and P/E/2023-2024/291 for the Subject Lands.
6The Applicant gave notice to the Tribunal on May 17, 2023, pursuant to s. 21 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act (“OLTA”) for a consolidated hearing for the proposed undertaking, for an appeal under s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, a referral by the Minister under s. 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, and a hearing and appeal under s. 10(3) and s. 25(5.1), respectively, of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.
7The Applicant anticipates the testimony of 35 witnesses and requests the scheduling of a 40-day consolidated hearing.
8Counsel to the Town of Caledon, Region of Peel, NEC, and Richard Pilosof opposed the scheduling of the consolidated hearing at this time. They submit that scheduling the hearing is premature on the basis that the Minister has not yet referred the aggregate licence to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act.
9The Tribunal finds it would be premature to schedule the consolidated hearing before all instruments pertaining to the appeals are before it. At the hearing, the Tribunal directed the Parties to submit a Draft Issues List and Draft Procedural Order (“PO”) for approval at the following CMC. Since the hearing concluded, it has come to the attention of the Tribunal that directing the Draft Issues List and Draft Procedural Order be submitted before the aggregate licence is referred is also premature. Indeed, since all objectors to the aggregate licence are deemed to be a party