Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
October 27, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000550
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 38(4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant
Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc.
Subject:
Appeal of decision
Description:
Interim Control By-law to facilitate staging of Development Plan for unallocated greenfield residential lands within the settlement area of Breslau
Reference Number:
By-law 20-2025
Property Address:
Unallocated Greenfield Residential Lands
Municipality/UT:
Woolwich / Waterloo
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000550
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000550
OLT Case Name:
Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)
Heard:
October 1, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc.
John Alati
Grace O’Brien
Township of Woolwich
David Neligan
Eileen Costello (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON OCTOBER 1, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This event was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal pursuant to section 38(4) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc. (“Appellant”) against the enactment by the Township of Woolwich (“Township”) of By-law No. 20-2025, an Interim Control By-law (“ICBL”) that prohibits development within unallocated greenfield residential lands in Breslau for a maximum of one year unless extended by Council pursuant to section 38 of the Act. The ICBL was adopted by Council on May 27, 2025.
2At the CMC, the Tribunal canvassed Counsel, who confirmed that there were no issues with the service of the Notice of CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service sworn by Nancy Thompson on September 9, 2025, which was marked as Exhibit 1, and confirms that Notice was adequately served. As such, no further notice is required.
STATUS REQUESTS
3The Tribunal received two requests for Party Status, from:
a. Thomasfield Homes Limited (“Thomasfield”), who is interested in this appeal as the Official Plan Review, and in particular the outcomes of the associated Breslau Staging of Development study (which provides the rationale for the required development freeze established through the ICBL), directly impacts the future development of the Thomasfield lands within the study area. Thomasfield supports the proposed ICBL (which is why it did not appeal it) as the completion of the Staging Study is required for the orderly development of lands within the study area for the ICBL. Thomasfield was represented by Peter Pickfield at the CMC.
b. Madwest Breslau Limited and Woolwich South Holdings Limited (collectively “Madison”), who is interested in this appeal because the ICBL deals with the growth management and servicing capacity allocations in the Township, and Madison’s lands have been approved for residential redevelopment (for which the Township has allocated servicing capacity). In addition, Madison is engaged with the Township regarding the ongoing Proposed Staging Plan, which is directly related to the ICBL. Madison also supported the ICBL (and did not appeal the Town’s decision to enact it for that reason), but is interested in the outcome of the appeal. Madison was represented by Lee English and Piper Morley (in absentia) at the CMC.
4The Appellant did not consent to the requests for Party Status. However, the Appellant’s request was that the Tribunal refrain from addressing the Party status requests at the CMC and to schedule a Motion instead. The Appellant stated that the letters submitted in support of the status requests did not provide adequate information to support them being added as Parties. Specifically, the Appellant’s counsel stated that there is a legislative test that governs addition of Parties in ICBL matters, and Thomasfield/Madison have not adequately satisfied that test in their materials. As such, a Motion was required to allow all involved to delve into the legislative tests. In support of this position, the Appellant provided case law wherein the Tribunal had directed that the Party status request should proceed by way of a Motion.
5The Appellant’s Counsel submitted that if the Tribunal did not agree to proceed by way of a Motion, then it opposed these requests for status. In the alternative, if the Tribunal saw fit to add these entities as Parties, the Appellant’s Counsel submitted that they should only be added as non-Appellant Parties and be required to shelter under the Appellant’s issues. While section 38(4) of the Act is not one of those sections of the Act that are specifically listed in Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Appellant’s Counsel maintained that these entities would be required to shelter under the Appellant’s Issues.
6Both Thomasfield and Madison agreed that this matter should proceed by way of Motion. The Township consented to the requests for Party Status, but, as the Appellant and Thomasfield/Madison all agreed to proceed by way of Motion, the Township agreed as well.
7The Tribunal explained that, while a CMC was an appropriate venue to address requests for status such as this (as opposed to a Motion), since those affected requested to proceed by way of Motion and advised that there were legal issues to be explored, the Tribunal agreed to schedule same. Moreover, since part of the request was that issues of added Parties should be sheltered, and the Appellant’s Counsel advised he could provide (legal) arguments in support of this position, the Tribunal found that this was a legal issue that could be appropriately dealt with in a Motion. Thus, as detailed below, a Motion in writing has been scheduled to address the following:
a. Whether Thomasfield and Madison should be added as Parties to this proceeding?
b. If they are added, should they be added as non-Appellant Parties, having to shelter under the Appellant’s Issues?
MOTION
8As discussed above, a Motion is necessary to determine whether Party Status should be granted to Thomasfield and Madison. It was agreed that the Motion should take place prior to the second CMC, rather than at the same time, in order to allow for procedural matters, such as ratification of the Procedural Order, to be addressed at the second CMC. The Motion was scheduled to take place in writing on Wednesday, November 5, 2025.
9Additionally, while the Township and the Appellant are both Responding Parties in this Motion, the Township is aligned with the Responding Parties. Thus, to allow the Appellant to respond to all aligned Parties adequately, the Tribunal implemented the following timelines for service of materials, all to be served to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by 4 p.m.:
a. The Moving Parties are to serve their Motion Records by October 17, 2025.
b. The Township is to serve its Responding Motion Record by October 22, 2025.
c. The Appellant is to serve its Responding Motion Record by October 29, 2025.
d. The Moving Parties are to serve their Reply Materials by November 3, 2025.
SECOND CMC
10To address procedural matters subsequent to determining Thomasfield and Madison’s Party status requests, a second CMC was scheduled to take place by video conference on Monday, January 12, 2026 at 10 a.m. The Parties were directed to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, or a status update, to the Tribunal, by Monday, January 5, 2026. The Township’s Counsel undertook to submit them to the Case Coordinator by that date.
11The Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885
Access Code: 344-779-885
12The Parties 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
13Persons 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: 1 + (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 344-779-885.
14Individuals 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.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
15As it was very early in the process and the Parties have yet to be determined, this has not yet been discussed amongst the Parties. However, the Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a Settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the Hearing, and should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services.
ORDER
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. A Motion in writing is scheduled as described above in this Decision.
b. A second Case Management Conference is scheduled as described above in this Decision.
c. The Procedural Order and Issues List, or a status update, is to be provided to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by Monday, January 5, 2026.
17No further Notice is required.
18This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
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.