Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 2, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000591
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Elflrida Community Builders Group Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To facilitate the inclusion of the subject lands in the City’s urban boundary expansion Reference Number: UHOPA-25-007 Property Address: Elfrida Area Lands Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000591 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000591 OLT Case Name: Elfrida Community Builders Group Inc. v. Hamilton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Elflrida Community Builders Group Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To facilitate the inclusion of the subject lands in the City’s urban boundary expansion Reference Number: RHOPA-25-008 Property Address: Elfrida Area Lands Municipality/UT: Hamilton/Hamilton OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000602 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000591
Heard: September 29, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Elfrida Community Builder’s Group | J. Hoffman R. Howe N. Smith (in absentia) |
| City of Hamilton | E. Davis P. MacDonald |
| DiCenzo Golf Club Road Holdings Inc., Highland Road (Elfrida) Holdings Inc., Crossroads (Rymal and Upper Centennial) Holdings Inc. | R. Cheeseman |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Elfrida Community Builder’s Group (“Appellant”) consists of members that collectively own the majority of lands within the Elfrida Area, which is contiguous to the existing Urban Boundary of Hamilton and generally bounded by Mud Street East to the north, Second Road East and Hendershot Road to the east, Golf Club Road to the south and Trinity Church Road to the west.
2This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purposes of organizing the Appellant’s appeal of the decision of the City of Hamilton (“City”) to refuse an application for an Official Plan Amendment, which seeks to remove approximately 1,209 hectares of land from the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and include these lands in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan, with the majority to be designated Urban Expansion Area – Neighbourhoods (“Proposed Urban Boundary Expansion”).
3The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service sworn on August 20, 2025, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given. No further notice will be required.
STATUS REQUESTS
4In response to the Notice, the Tribunal received one written request for Party status from DiCenzo Golf Club Road Holdings Inc., Highland Road (Elfrida) Holdings Inc., Crossroads (Rymal and Upper Centennial) Holdings Inc. (“DiCenzo”). DiCenzo owns land within the proposed urban boundary expansion area and, while generally supportive of the appeal, have an interest in ensuring that facilities and services including, but not limited to: transportation, infrastructure and schools/parks, are appropriately planned and located within the proposed urban boundary expansion area.
5The Tribunal, having been satisfied that DiCenzo has a direct interest in these proceedings, granted the request for Party status with no objection from the other Parties.
6In addition to the foregoing, the Tribunal received 24 written requests for Participant status. For the sake of efficiency, all Parties to the proceeding indicated that they had completed a detailed review of all Participant requests prior to the CMC and indicated that there were no objections to the granting of all 24 requests.
7Although typically the Tribunal encourages prospective Participants whose viewpoints and concerns align to submit one joint statement for the sake of efficiency, in this case, the Tribunal recognizes that this matter does not just affect one specific neighbourhood. Therefore, in this instance, such efforts at organization are likely not feasible.
8The contents of the 24 requests for Participant status, which were all granted by the Tribunal, are briefly summarized below:
- Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board (“HWCDSB”)
- Raised concerns relating to the impact of the proposed urban boundary expansion upon a 5.9 acre parcel of land at 55 Regional Road 20, including but not limited to: road patterns for the area; the provision of infrastructure; designated uses for adjoining lands; and the capacity of area schools to accommodate future students should development of the proposed urban boundary expansion area occur.
- Upper West Side Landowners Group (“UWSLG”)
- UWSLG currently has appeals before the Tribunal of the City’s failure to make decisions on applications for the inclusion of approximately 110 hectares of land generally bounded by Twenty Road West, Dickenson Road, Glancaster Road and Upper James Street in the City’s urban area. Those appeals are scheduled for an 8-week hearing commencing April 13, 2026, and it is anticipated that the issues in this proceeding will overlap to some degree.
- Twenty Road East Landowners Group (“TRELG”)
- TRELG is anticipating filing applications for an urban boundary expansion for an area where its lands are located and advocates for an “integrated approach”, seeking to participate in these proceedings to ensure the proposed urban boundary expansion does not adversely impact other potential urban boundary expansions within this area of the City.
- Whitechurch Landowners Group (“WLG”)
- WLG submitted applications in February 2025 seeking to remove its lands (located southwest of the Appellant’s lands) from the Rural Hamilton Official Plan and include them in the Urban Hamilton Official Plan. Those applications are the subject of ongoing proceedings before the Tribunal (File No. OLT-25-000613). The conduct and outcome of these proceedings may influence or impact WLG’s ongoing appeal.
- Jack Restivo
- Mr. Restivo is a part owner, together with Sharon Restivo and Sonoma Development Group Inc., of Part Lot 23 Con. 7 Saltfleet, being 00 Highland Road, Stoney Creek, located within the Elfrida Area Lands subject to the appeal. Mr. Restivo supports the position of the Appellant.
- through 24) Individual Hamilton Residents, as listed below:
Anne Rae, Seanna Tebbutt, Jill Tonini, Mary Anne Peters, Kathleen Livingston, Lois Corey, Suzanne Sulikowski, Margaret Tremblay, Rose Janson, Charles Langford, DD Crowley, Miriam Sager, Donald Brown, Adrienne Hol, Chelsey Tobin, Hillary Lyttle, Madelyne Maingot, Michael Gleadall, Colin Hough
Briefly summarized, the Participant Status requests of the aforementioned individuals express the following views and outline the following concerns:
o the City has the ability to meet housing targets and increase affordability of housing without the proposed urban boundary expansion;
o approval of the proposed expansion will result in increased financial burdens associated with building and maintaining new infrastructure and services for future development;
o concerns with respect to potentially detrimental effects upon farmland and food security, climate change, wetlands and wildlife; and
o concerns that the proposed expansion of the urban boundary will draw growth away from existing infrastructure including Light Rail Transit.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
9Recognizing the early stages of these proceedings, the Tribunal canvassed the Parties with respect to opportunities for settlement, reminding them of the availability of Tribunal-assisted mediation. The Tribunal was advised that, although the Appellant is open to having discussions aimed at resolving the appeal, the City does not have instructions to do so.
10The Parties confirmed awareness of the availability of Tribunal-assisted mediation and the procedure of emailing the assigned case coordinator to request a mediation assessment, if necessary.
NEXT STEPS
11While the Parties have been working toward finalizing a Procedural Order (“PO”) and detailed Issues List (“IL”) for the Tribunal’s review and approval, they were not in a position to present same at the CMC. The Parties indicated that they have a decent idea of the number of expert witnesses that will be called to testify at a future hearing and that the IL will, in all likelihood, be similar to that of the UWSLG hearing scheduled for April 2026.
12Although the Parties requested the matter be set down for an 8-week hearing in early 2027, the Tribunal declined to schedule a hearing without an IL and directed the Parties to submit a draft PO and IL for review and approval no later than Monday, October 27, 2025, along with suggested hearing dates. The PO and IL along with the scheduled hearing dates can then be issued by way of a subsequent order.
ORDER
13The case management directives above are so ordered.
14There will be no further notice. The Member is not seized but may be available for additional case management should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.
“S. Braun”
S. Braun
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.