Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 26, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002819 (Formerly PL180345), OLT-23-000835

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

Applicant and Appellant: The Manors of Belfountain Corp Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a residential lot development with a draft plan of subdivision on a property within the Minor Urban Centre of Belfountain Reference Number: 21T-91015C Property Address: Mississauga Road, Part Lot 9, Concession 5 WHS Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002819 Legacy Case No.: PL180345 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002819 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL180345 OLT Case Name: The Manors of Belfountain Corp v. Caledon (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 25(5.1) and (8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2

Appellant: Belfountain Community and Planning Organization (Appeal No. 008872) Appellant: Town of Caledon (Appeal No. 008873) Applicant: The Manors of Belfountain Corp Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission Subject: Conditions of Approval of a Development Permit Application Description: To develop a residential lot with 75 units on a property within the Minor Urban Centre of Belfountain Reference Number.: PR/2017-2018/450 Property Address: Part Lot 8 & 9, Concession 5 WHS Mississauga Road Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000835 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000835 OLT Case Name: Belfountain Community and Planning Organization v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)

Heard: February 1, 2024, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties to both OLT-22-002819 and OLT-23-000835

Counsel The Manors of Belfountain Corp.: Mark Flowers Town of Caledon: Chris Barnett, Evan Barz Regional Municipality of Peel: Rachel Godley

Parties to only OLT-23-000835

Counsel Niagara Escarpment Commission: Baiqing Luo, Ken Hare Belfountain Community and Planning Organization Inc.: David Donnelly

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. I. MOLINARI ON FEBRUARY 1, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in respect of an appeal filed pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Planning Act by The Manors of Belfountain Corp. (“MBC”) against the Town of Caledon (“Town”) for its failure to make a decision on a Draft Plan of Subdivision application (“DPS”) within the timeframe prescribed by the Planning Act for the property legally described as Part Lot 8 & 9, Concession 5 WHS, Mississauga Road (“Property”).

2The CMC is also in respect of appeals filed pursuant to s. 25(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”) by the Town and Belfountain Community and Planning Organization Inc. (“BCPO”) against the decision of the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”) to conditionally approve a Development Permit Application (“NEC Permit”) for the Property related to the DPS. The Tribunal functions as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“NEHO”) and the Tribunal Member constitutes as a Hearing Officer for appeals under NEPDA. It is noted that MBC is the Applicant to the NEC appeals and not an Appellant.

3Nine other persons also appealed the decision of the NEC to conditionally approve the NEC Permit but subsequently withdrew their appeals ahead of the CMC.

4The purpose of the DPS and the NEC Permit is to facilitate the development of the Property for a 75-lot plan of subdivision for the development of residential lots on private services as well as stormwater management, parkland, open space and buffer blocks.

NOTICE

5An Affidavit of Service for both the Planning Act and NEPDA appeals was affirmed on December 21, 2023, attesting to the giving of notice for this proceeding and was marked as Exhibit 1.

PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

6In advance of the CMC, a written request for Party status was received from the Regional Municipality of Peel (“Region”). With the consent of the Parties, Party status was granted to the Region for both appeal streams. Ms. Godley advised that the Region is interested in maintaining an observer status as a protective measure and is mainly concerned with the NEC Permit appeal.

7Mr. Hare advised that, due to the anticipated consolidation request, the NEC did not seek Party status for the DPS appeal. He clarified however, that if the matters are not consolidated, the NEC would be requesting Party status to the DPS appeal.

8Mr. Donnelly advised that, if the appeals are to be consolidated, he would be requesting Party status to the DPS appeal.

9For clarification to all Parties, the Tribunal read Rule 16.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), which states that, if consolidated, “parties to each of the original separate proceedings are parties to the consolidated proceeding”, and “evidence to be presented in each of the separate proceedings is evidence in the consolidated proceeding”.

10There were no other requests for Party or Participant status.

CONSOLIDATION REQUEST

11Ahead of the CMC, Mr. Flowers submitted a letter to the Tribunal giving notice of MBC’s intention to have the appeals heard by the Tribunal at a consolidated Hearing under s. 21 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act (“OLTA”).

12Section 21(2) of the OLTA “applies in respect of an undertaking if one or more of the Acts prescribed by the regulations provides that more than one hearing is or may be required to be held by more than one administrative tribunal in relation to the undertaking” [emphasis added]. At the CMC, it was the Tribunal’s direction to Mr. Flowers, to more appropriately make his submission under Rule 16 of the Rules, as the Tribunal is the only Tribunal to hold the Hearing. Further, the Tribunal noted that under s. 25(11) of NEPDA, the Tribunal, sitting as the NEHO, must provide an opinion on the merits of the NEC permit application to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (“Minister”), and the Minister’s decision is required before the Tribunal can issue a decision on the related appeal.

13Mr. Flowers respectfully disagreed and proffered that, pursuant to a Regulation under the OLTA, both the Planning Act and NEPDA are prescribed Acts for the purposes of s. 21 of the OLTA, and that, upon consolidation, the Tribunal, not the Minister, would make the final Decision. He added that, by effect, Rule 16 of the Rules would then be invoked, and Parties to one matter would subsequently be Parties to all matters.

14Mr. Hare advised that he agreed with Mr. Flowers’ submissions regarding the consolidation under s. 21 of the OLTA.

15Mr. Donnelly advised that he did not agree with Mr. Flowers’ submissions, noting that he did not offer consent to the consolidation in this respect, and that he was not withdrawing his consent to the consolidation request, but submitted that the consolidation request should be made under Rule 16 of the Rules and that the NEC appeal recommendation should go to the Minister for a Decision. He further noted that, as s. 21(5) of the OLTA provides that the Tribunal “may” make a decision, the Regulation was not before the Tribunal and no case law was provided, therefore the determination of the consolidation request should be made via a Motion Hearing.

16Mr. Hare added that the request to consolidate by Mr. Flowers is not a request for a ruling on the effect of the consolidation, and the determination of whether the Minister is to decide on the NEPDA appeal, or whether the Tribunal would make the final decision, could be determined at a later date.

17The Tribunal ruled that the consolidation request was not denied nor determined at this time and would be better considered at a Motion Hearing, wherein all Parties can make fulsome submissions. Mr. Flowers was advised to contact the Case Coordinator to schedule a Motion Hearing to determine the consolidation request. Upon further review, the Tribunal believes that it would be more efficient for the Motion to be made returnable at the second CMC on Thursday, May 23, 2024, at 10 a.m. as set out in paragraph [25].

MEDIATION

18The Tribunal advised the Parties of the option of Tribunal-led mediation and to contact the Case Coordinator to determine next steps if the need for mediation arises.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

19In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal was in receipt of a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) with only MBC’s single issue, regarding the appropriate conditions of draft plan approval. Mr. Barz advised that he had just received direction from Town Council and would not be submitting an Issues List (“IL”) at this time and further, if the Town did submit an IL, it would be restricted to issues of hydrogeology which he anticipated would not impact the length of the Hearing.

20Mr. Flowers advised that Mr. Donnelly had provided him with a revised IL providing sufficient specificity to BCPO’s issues, but no indication of the number of witnesses BCPO intended to call. He added that, based on BCPO’s IL, he anticipated that witnesses with expertise in hydrogeology, transportation, ecology and land use planning would be required, resulting in an estimated two to three week-long Hearing. Mr. Donnelly concurred with an estimated hearing length of 15 days.

21The Tribunal received and approved the final PO and IL prior to the issuance of this Decision. The PO and IL attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision shall govern these proceedings.

HEARING EVENTS

22Mr. Flowers requested dates for a subsequent CMC and for a 15-day Merit Hearing in early 2025, to which Mr. Donnelly advised that he was not averse to a second CMC but thought the consolidation request should be determined prior to setting dates for a Merit Hearing. The Tribunal found that a Hearing date to be set approximately one year from this CMC provided sufficient time for the determination of the consolidation request, and that the length of the Hearing would not be significantly impacted by the determination of the consolidation request. The NEC, Town and Region did not voice objections to setting hearing dates.

23The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for Thursday, May 23, 2024, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing. The purpose of the second CMC will be to determine the consolidation request.

24Mr. Flowers anticipated witnesses in the fields of hydrogeology, transportation, ecology, and land use planning and estimated a two- to three-week Hearing would be required. The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day Video Hearing to commence on Monday, February 10, 2025, at 10 a.m. through to Friday, February 28, 2025, exclusive of Monday, February 17, 2025.

25Parties are asked to log into the Video Hearing at the links below at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test video and audio connections:

Second CMC on Thursday, May 23, 2024 at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173 Access Code: 519-389-173 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free: 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only Access Code: 519-389-173

Merit Hearing on Monday, February 10, 2025, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing GoToMeeting: https://meet.goto.com/357283957 Access Code: 357-283-957 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll Free: 1-888-455-1389 Audio-only Access Code: 357-283-957

26Parties and Participants 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 at: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

27Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into the audio-only telephone line.

28Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned dates at the correct times. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in hearing events by video to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to these hearing events may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

POST-HEARING UPDATE

29Discussions between the Applicant and the Town took place after the CMC and prior to the Tribunal receiving the final PO and IL, resulting in the Town advising the Tribunal that it has no objections to the approval of the NEC Permit and the DPS, provided that certain conditions are imposed through the Tribunal’s Order, should the Tribunal be inclined to approve the proposed development. Further, the Town advised that, should the Tribunal express reluctance to order the imposition of the conditions in a potential future Order, the Town reserves the right to make submissions to the Tribunal as to why the conditions should be imposed.

30The Tribunal notes that BCPO, the Region and the NEC are also Parties to the proceedings and the Tribunal would not be ruling on the merits of the Applications, or the conditions, other than through a Merit or Settlement Hearing. In the event of a Settlement, it would be the Tribunal’s suggestion that the NEC appeal be withdrawn such that a recommendation report would not need to be submitted to the Minister pursuant to s. 25(11) of the NEPDA.

ORDER

31The Tribunal confers Party status to the Regional Municipality of Peel for both appeal streams.

32The Tribunal orders that the Procedural Order and Issues List set out as Schedule 1 is deemed in force and effect and shall govern the Hearing of the Merits.

33No further notice is required.

34The Member is not seized of this matter.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI MEMBER / HEARING OFFICER 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.

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002819, OLT-23-000835

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

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 25(5.1) and (8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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

The video hearing will begin on Monday, February 10, 2025 at 10:00 am. No further notice shall be required. The GoToMeeting link is: https://meet.goto.com/357283957
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 14 days, concluding on Friday, February 28, 2025. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see Attachment 4 for the meaning of these terms).
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 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 either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
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.

Requirements Before the Hearing

A Motion to determine the consolidation request will be returnable at a second Case Management Conference scheduled on Thursday, May 23, 2024, at 10 a.m. No further notice shall be required. The GoToMeeting link is: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173
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 Friday, October 11, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, November 8, 2024 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting(s), the witnesses in the same field must prepare a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues identifying areas of agreement, areas in dispute, and the issues that will be addressed at the hearing. All documents exchanged and discussions between expert witnesses are on a without prejudice basis, with the exception of the Statement of Facts and Issues which becomes part of the record when it has been signed by the experts. The Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues will be filed with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, November 22, 2024.
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. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. 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.
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 as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.
On or before Monday, December 9, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
On or before Monday, December 9, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before Monday, January 6, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before Friday, January 10, 2025, the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
On or before Monday, January 20, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
On or before Monday, January 27, 2025, the parties shall share with the OLT case co-ordinator a joint document book prepared jointly and cooperatively by the parties.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness 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.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, January 27, 2025 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
All filings shall be submitted electronically and, if requested by the Tribunal, in hard copy. 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.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: Name of Member: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Summary of Dates

Date	Event
Thursday, May 23, 2024	Second Case Management Conference
Friday, October 11, 2024	Parties to exchange lists of witnesses (names, disciplines and intended order to be called)
Friday, November 8, 2024	Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting
Friday, November 22, 2024	Parties must file any Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues
Monday, December 9, 2024	Witness Statements and Participant Statements to be exchanged
Monday, January 6, 2025	Parties to advise Tribunal whether all the Hearing days are required
Friday, January 10, 2025	Reply Witness Statements and the reply to written evidence of witnesses (if any) to be exchanged
Monday, January 20, 2025	Visual Evidence to be exchanged
Monday, January 27, 2025	Joint Document Book to be filed
Monday, January 27, 2025	Draft Hearing Plan to be filed
Monday, February 10, 2025	Hearing commences

Attachment 1

List of Parties and Participants

Parties

The Manors of Belfountain Corp. Mark Flowers and Grace O’Brien Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Email: markf@davieshowe.com / graceo@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-977-7088
Town of Caledon Chris Barnett and Evan Barz Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Suite 6200, 100 King Street West P.O. Box 50 Toronto, ON M5X 1B8 Email: cbarnett@osler.com / ebarz@osler.com Tel: 416-862-6651 / 416-862-4209
Niagara Escarpment Commission Ken Hare and Baiqing Luo Ministry of the Attorney General Civil Law Division | Legal Services Branch Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry 99 Wellesley Street West, Room 3420, Whitney Block Toronto, ON M7A 1W3 Email: ken.hare2@ontario.ca / baiqinq.luo@ontario.ca Tel: 647-205-6468 / 647-580-9372
Region of Peel Rachel Godley, Legal Counsel Region of Peel 10 Peel Centre Drive Brampton, ON L6T 4B9 Email: Rachel.Godley@PeelRegion.ca Tel: 905-791-7800 ext 7189
Belfountain Community and Planning Organization Inc. David Donnelly Donnelly Law Suite 203 276 Carlaw Avenue Toronto, ON M4M 3L1 Email: david@donnellylaw.ca Tel: 416-572-0464

Participants None

Attachment 2

Issues List

The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Issues of Belfountain Community and Planning Organization Inc.

Does the development proposal consisting of Notice of Decision for Development Permit P/R/2017-2018/450 and Draft Plan of Subdivision 21T-91015C for the subject lands (collectively the “development proposal”) have appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest enumerated in section 2 of the Planning Act, specifically the following clauses: 2a, c-f, h, o-s?
Is the development proposal consistent with the relevant policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (the “PPS”), specifically the following policy sections:

Policy Section 1.1 (Managing and Directing Land Use) 1.1.1 Healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by: c) avoiding development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns; h) promoting development and land use patterns that conserve biodiversity; and i) preparing for the regional and local impacts of a changing climate.
Policy Section 1.6.6 (Water, Sewage and Stormwater) 1.6.6.1 Planning for sewage and water services shall: a) accommodate forecasted growth in a manner that promotes the efficient use and optimization of existing:

municipal sewage services and municipal water services; and
private communal sewage services and private communal water services, where municipal sewage services and municipal water services are not available or feasible; b) ensure that these systems are provided in a manner that:
can be sustained by the water resources upon which such services rely;
prepares for the impacts of a changing climate;
is feasible and financially viable over their lifecycle; and
protects human health and safety, and the natural environment; c) promote water conservation and water use efficiency; d) integrate servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process; and e) be in accordance with the servicing hierarchy outlined through policies 1.6.6.2, 1.6.6.3, 1.6.6.4 and 1.6.6.5. For clarity, where municipal sewage services and municipal water services are not available, planned or feasible, planning authorities have the ability to consider the use of the servicing options set out through policies 1.6.6.3, 1.6.6.4, and 1.6.6.5 provided that the specified conditions are met. 1.6.6.4 Where municipal sewage services and municipal water services or private communal sewage services and private communal water services are not available, planned or feasible, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used provided that site conditions are suitable for the long-term provision of such services with no negative impacts. In settlement areas, individual on-site sewage services and individual on-site water services may be used for infilling and minor rounding out of existing development.

Policy Section 1.8.1 (Energy Conservation, Air Quality, and Climate Change)
Policy Section 2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7 and 2.1.8 (Natural Heritage)
Policy Section 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 (Water)

Does the development proposal conform with the relevant policies, objectives and criteria of Niagara Escarpment Plan (2017) (the “NEP”), specifically the following sections:

Policy 1.3 Escarpment Natural Area Objective: To recognize, protect and where possible enhance the natural heritage and hydrological systems associated with the Niagara Escarpment Plan area.
natural heritage and hydrological systems specifically Objective: To protect the most natural Escarpment features, valleylands, wetlands and related significant natural areas.
wetlands supporting groundwater discharge areas and fish habitat specifically
Policy 1.6 Minor Urban Centre, Development and Growth Objectives To ensure that cumulatively the existing Minor Urban Centres and any associated development and growth can be accommodated and serviced in a manner that would be environmentally sustainable over the long term. To direct the growth of villages, hamlets, and settlement areas away from Escarpment Natural Areas and Escarpment Protection Areas into Escarpment Rural Areas in a logical manner with the least possible environmental and agricultural disruption. 1.6.8 Development and Growth Objectives Growth and development in Minor Urban Centres shall be compatible with and provide for:
the protection of natural heritage features and functions;
the protection of hydrologic features and functions;
the protection of agricultural lands, including prime agricultural areas;
the conservation of cultural heritage resources, including features of interest to First Nation and Métis communities;
considerations for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and improved resilience to the impacts of a changing climate;
sustainable use of water resources for ecological and servicing needs; and
Criteria 2.4 Lot Creation, policies 1-7
Criteria 2.6 Development Affecting Water Resources, policies 1-10
Criteria 2.7 Development Affecting Natural Heritage, policies 1-8
Criteria 2.13 Scenic Resources and Landform Conservation, policies 4-10

Does the development proposal conform with the relevant policies of the Region of Peel Official Plan, specifically the following: Regional Official Plan policy 2.2.5.1.2 “protect, maintain and enhance groundwater resources.” Objective of the Regional Official Plan 3.4.1.2 “To eliminate or minimize negative potential land use impacts on headwater recharge and discharge areas, groundwater aquifers, producing wells, stream base flow, surface water, downstream aquatic systems and related natural systems.”
Does the development proposal conform with the relevant policies of the Town of Caledon Official Plan, specifically the following: 3.2.2.1 Ecosystem Integrity Objectives 3.2.2.1.1 To protect, maintain, and, as appropriate, enhance and restore ecosystem functions and processes vital to the integrity of communities (both natural and cultural), particularly in relation to: • Air quality; • Groundwater quality and quantity, recharge and discharge; • Surface water quality and quantity; • Soil fertility; and, • Biota. 3.2.2.1.2 To protect, maintain, and, as appropriate, enhance and restore ecosystem attributes and values, including: • Connectivity; • Viability / self-sustainability; • Biological diversity; • Dynamics; and, • Aesthetics (natural scenery). 3.2.2.1.3 To protect, maintain, and, as appropriate, enhance and restore physical and biological systems and features that support ecosystem integrity and associated functions, processes, attributes and values, including: • Bedrock and surficial geology; • Landforms, topography and soils; • Groundwater and aquifers; • Surface water systems including: watersheds and sub-watersheds; rivers and streams (permanent and intermittent); valley and stream corridors; and, lakes and ponds; • Fisheries and wildlife; • Wetlands and woodlands; and, • ANSIs and ESAs.
Does the development proposal adequately assess impacts on hydrogeology, including quantity of groundwater and quality of groundwater, as it relates to the existing public and private wells within the Hamlet of Belfountain and surrounding community (see map attached)?
Does the development proposal adequately assess impacts on hydrogeology, including infiltration of surface water and precipitation to maintain groundwater quantity and quality within the community (see map attached)?
Does the development proposal adequately assess impacts on hydrogeology, including quantity of groundwater and quality of groundwater as it relates to the existing springs, seeps and brook trout habitat within the community?
Does the development proposal adequately assess impacts on natural heritage features such as woodlands, connectivity, wetlands and species-at-risk habitat of the surrounding landscape (see map attached)?
Will the proposed development cause an unacceptable increase in traffic and traffic safety issues in the adjacent community (see map attached) and have an adverse impact?
Does the development proposal provide an appropriate transition to adjacent and surrounding areas, are the proposed buffers adequate, and is the development compatible with the existing community (see map attached)?
Does the development proposal fit within the character of adjacent and surrounding lands?
In the context of the issues identified above, does the development proposal represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?

Issues of The Manors of Belfountain Corp.

If the draft plan of subdivision is to be approved, what are the appropriate conditions of approval?

Attachment 3

Order of Evidence

The Manors of Belfountain Corp.
Niagara Escarpment Commission
Region of Peel
Town of Caledon
Belfountain Community and Planning Organization Inc.
Reply of The Manors of Belfountain Corp. (if any)

Attachment 4

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A 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. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and 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 authorisation 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 (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant 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.

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 he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (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 supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

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.

The Manors of Belfountain Corp v. Caledon (Town), 2024 CanLII 28390

Case Summary