Haley’s Elevator Inc. v Brant (County), 2025 CanLII 101543

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 01, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000430

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: Haley’s Elevator Inc.

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: ZBA and Subdivision applications to permit the creation of 108 single detached dwellings

Reference Number: ZBA12-24-KD

Property Address: 29 Thirteenth Concession Road N0E 1R0

Municipality/UT: Brant/Brant

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000430

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000430

OLT Case Name: Haley’s Elevator Inc. v Brant (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision

Description: ZBA and Subdivision applications to permit the creation of 108 single detached dwellings

Reference Number: PS1-24-KD

Property Address: 29 Thirteenth Concession Road N0E 1R0

Municipality/UT: Brant/Brant

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000428

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000430

Heard: September 19, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Haley’s Elevator Inc.

Courtney Boyd

County of Brant

Rochelle Welchman

Kristine Murphy

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G.A. CROSER ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This decision arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) scheduled for the appeals by Haley’s Elevator Inc. (“Appellant”) with respect to the refusal by the County of Brant (“County”) to permit the Appellant’s applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and draft plan of subdivision (the “Applications”) for the property known municipally as 29 Thirteenth Concession Road. The Applications were necessary for the proposed creation of 108 single detached dwellings, park and stormwater block, new streets, and a mixed-use/commercial block.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

2The Tribunal received two Affidavits of Service sworn by Joanne Walker on August 1^st and 11^th 2025, with respect to this Appeal. The County explained that the Notice of CMC provided by the County on August 1^st included an incorrect map and an error in the number of residential units, these details were corrected in the second Notice of CMC delivered on August 11. The Appellant confirmed the County’s explanation and had no issue with this service, the Tribunal has marked the Affidavits of Service as follows:

a. Exhibit 1A: Affidavit of Service sworn by Joanne Walker on August 1; and

b. Exhibit 1B: Affidavit of Service sworn by Joanne Walker on August 11.

PARTY/PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS

3The Tribunal did not receive any status requests in advance or at the CMC.

STATUS UPDATE

4The Parties provided a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) in advance of the CMC; however, the estimated time required for the Hearing in the PO was left blank. The County submitted that ten-days are necessary for a hearing on the merits of the Appeal. In its view the Applications are premature given the fact that a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (“MESP”) has not yet been adopted by the County and that servicing is a key concern in this Appeal. The Appellant rejects the County’s position and counters that five-days would be required for a hearing as the Applications were not dependent on whether an MESP was in place.

5After hearing submissions from counsel, the Tribunal decided to schedule a ten-day hearing. The Parties were reminded that should certain issues be resolved in the interim period they should reach out to the Case Coordinator to release any surplus dates.

MEDIATION

6When raised by the Tribunal, both Parties expressed an interest in Tribunal-led mediation as a means of settling the issue of the MESP, narrowing the scope of other issues, or resolving the Appeal. The Appellant queried how to potentially remove the issue of the need for an MESP from the IL if mediation proved unsuccessful. The Tribunal noted that this can be addressed at the hearing, or the Parties may choose to address the matter by means of a written motion. Parties are reminded that if mediation assists with reducing the number of issues and consequently the number of days required for the Hearing, they are to inform the Tribunal in a timely manner.

7The Parties are encouraged to reach out to the Case Coordinator to schedule a mediation assessment.

HEARING

8The ten-day hearing on the merits of this Appeal has been scheduled to proceed by video beginning on Monday, April 13, 2026 at 10 a.m. and ending on Friday, April 24, 2026.

9Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733

Access code: 979-388-733

10Parties and/or 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

11Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 979-388-733.

12Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

UPDATED PROCEDURAL ORDER

13The Parties were asked to forward an Updated PO (“Updated PO”) to the Case Coordinator populated with the hearing length, start-date and all other dates that flow from same. The Updated PO, attached to this Decision as ‘Attachment 1’ has been received, reviewed, and will govern the remainder of this proceeding.

ORDER

14THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a. A ten-day hearing on the merits of this Appeal is to be held commencing on Monday, April 13, 2026 at 10 a.m.

“G.A Croser”

G.A CROSER

Member

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ISSUE DATE: October 01, 2025 CASE NO.: OLT-25-000430

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Haley’s Elevator Inc.

Reference Number: ZBA12-24-KD

Property Address: 29 Thirteenth Concession Road Municipality/UT: Brant/Brant OLT Related Case No.: OLT-25-000428

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000430

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Haley’s Elevator Inc.

Reference Number: PS1-24-KD

Property Address: 29 Thirteenth Concession Road Municipality/UT: Brant/Brant OLT Related Case No.: OLT-25-000428

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000430

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 Monday, April 13, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. via videoconference.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 days. 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.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the attachment for the meaning of these terms).

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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.

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 December 12, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 21 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 proposed to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before January 13, 2026 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, and if the expert witnesses reach an agreement, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 28, 2026.

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. 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.

12. 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.

13. On or before February 13, 2026, 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 21 below.

14. On or before February 13, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 21 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. On or before March 23, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 21 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before March 13, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

17. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before April 3, 2026.

18. 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.

19. 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 and the other parties at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

20. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before March 23, 2026 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.

21. All filings shall be submitted electronically, and in hard copy to the Tribunal if requested. 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.

22. On or before March 9, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

23. 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

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 or participant 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.

ATTACHMENT 1 – LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Haley’s Elevator Inc.

Courtney J. Boyd Waterous Holden Amey Hitchon LLP PO Box 1510, 20 Wellington Street Brantford, Ontario N3T 5V6

Tel: (519) 759-6220 Ext. 338 Email: cboyd@waterousholden.com

County of Brant

Rochelle Welchman County of Brant 26 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 160 Burford, Ontario N0E 1A0

Tel: 519-449-2451

Email: rochelle.welchman@brant.ca

Kristine Murphy

County of Brant

26 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 160 Burford, N

N0E 1A0

Tel: 519-449-2451

Email: kristine.murphy@brant.ca

Participants

ATTACHMENT 2 – ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is relevant or appropriate, or that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it. The identification of an issue by a party indicates that party’s intent to tender evidence and/or make submissions on it, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet.

Issues of County of Brant

Planning

1. Is it premature to approve the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (DPS) for the Subject Land, given the status of prescribed studies under the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and Community Master Plan (CMP) which are currently being conducted by the County of Brant in the area of the subject land.
2. Do the Applications have regard to the provincial interests stated thereunder section 2 of the Planning Act?
3. Do the Applications have regard to the applicable criteria stated thereunder section 51(24) of the Planning Act?
4. Are the applications consistent with the following policies in the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) 2024?

• 2.1 (6) (a,b)
• 2.2 (1) (b,c)
• 2.5 (3)
• 3.6.1 (b), (3), (4)
• 3.6 (8)
• 3.9.1 (a,b,d)
• 4.2 (1), (2), (3)
• 6.2 (1)

5. If the Clergy principle applies, are the applications consistent with the following policies in the County of Brant Official Plan 2012?

• 2.2.3.1.2 (d, g)
• 2.2.5.2
• 5.2.2 (c)
• 5.2.3.4 (n)
• 5.2.4 (b)
• 6.5 (b)
• 6.6 (b)

6. If the Clergy principle does not apply, are the applications consistent with the following policies in the County of Brant Official Plan 2024?

• Part 4, Policy 5
• Part 5, Policy 1.5.1
• Part 5, Policy 1.5.2
• Part 5, Policy 1.5.3
• Part 5, Policy 2.13.1
• Part 5, Policy 2.13.3

7. Do the applications represent sustainable development and good planning?
8. Are the applications in the public interest?

Servicing

9. Should the applicants be required to wait for the County of Brant to present findings through a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) and an integrative Community Master Plan in order to coordinate the overall design of this community, so as to ensure sustainable growth management objectives can be met?

10. If the applications proceed in advance of the completion of the County’s MESP, have the applicant’s technical studies demonstrated private septic and well servicing is feasible and safe for the development and surrounding community?

11. Have the Applications and associated technical studies adequately considered any negative impact to the surrounding community in Scotland with the proposed septic system contaminant loadings and the use of private water servicing from a highly vulnerable aquifer?

12. An Interim Hydrogeological Site Assessment Thirteenth Concession Road, Scotland, County of Brant, Ontario prepared by G2S Consulting Inc., dated October 25, 2024 was completed and peer reviewed by Cambium Inc. on behalf of the County. How has the Application addressed concerns raised through Cambium’s peer review, specifically regarding nitrate loadings?

13. Have the Applications demonstrated that private services for the proposed development is safe, appropriate or in the public interest?

Stormwater

14. The County had the Applicant’s Stormwater Management Report prepared by J.H Cohoon Engineering Limited, dated October 15, 2024, peer reviewed by Ainley & Associates Limited. Do the applications appropriately address the comments and concerns in the peer review report of Ainley & Associates Limited, dated November 21, 2024?

Transportation/Access

15. The County had the Applicant’s Traffic Impact Study, prepared by RC Spencer Associates Inc, dated March 2024 peer reviewed by Arcadis Professional Services. Do the applications appropriately address the comments and concerns in the peer review report of Arcadis Professional Services Ltd., dated April 25, 2025?

Complete Communities

16. Have the characteristics of complete community design been achieved for the proposed development?

Issues of Haley’s Elevator

1. Should the Zoning Bylaw Amendment be approved?

2. Have the holding provisions been satisfied?

3. Should the Draft Plan of Subdivision be approved?

4. If the Draft Plan of Subdivision is to be approved, what are the appropriate conditions of draft plan approval?

5. Does the “Clergy” principle apply, and if so, does it apply to the County of Brant’s Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP)?

6. If the “Clergy” principle does not apply, does the County of Brant’s Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) apply?

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Haley’s Elevator Inc.

2. County of Brant

3. Haley’s Elevator Inc. (Reply)