Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 12, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001849

(Formerly PL190619)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Catherine & Donato Acchione

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request by Town of Caledon

Existing Designation: “Environmental Policy Area”

Proposed Designation: “High Density Residential”

Description: To permit the development of 8-storey residential condominium

Property Address/Description: 84 Nancy Street

Municipality: Town of Caledon

Approval Authority File No.: POPA 19-02

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001849

Legacy Case No: PL190619

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001849

Legacy File No.: PL190619

OLT Case Name: Acchione v. Caledon (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant and Appellant: Catherine & Donato Acchione

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2006-50 – Refusal or neglect of Town of Caledon to make a decision

Existing Zoning: “Environmental Policy Area 1 and 2”

Proposed Zoning: “Multiple Residential”

Description: To permit the development of 8-storey residential condominium

Property Address/Description: 84 Nancy Street

Municipality: Town of Caledon

Approval Authority File No.: RZ 10-03

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001849

Legacy Case No.: PL190619

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001881

Legacy File No.: PL190619

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Catherine and Don Acchione

Request for: Settlement

Heard: August 29, 2025 by video hearing; further supplementary written submissions on September 5, September 8, September 10 and September 16, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Catherine & Donato Acchione (“Applicants” or “Appellants”)

P. Harrington, M. Barrett

Town of Caledon (“Town”)

P. Boutis

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”)

T. Duncan, M. Rutledge

DECISION Delivered by william r. middleton AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This hearing, held by video on August 29, 2025, concerned a motion by the Applicants and the Town for approval of a settlement (“Motion”) reached by them pertaining to an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment (“Proposal”) to permit a development at 84 Nancy Street in the Town (“Subject Property”). The settlement proposes a 4-storey mid-rise residential condominium, plus rooftop amenity and mechanical penthouse on the Subject Property (“Settlement”). At the conclusion of the Motion hearing, the Tribunal sought supplementary written submissions from the Parties, which were completed on September 16, 2025 as described in paragraph [5] below.

2The evidentiary support for the Settlement stems from the planning opinion provided through two affidavits dated June 17 and August 26, 2025, of Martin Quarcoopome, a registered land use planner, whose planning evidence was tendered on consent of the Applicants and the Town and unchallenged by any fresh opinion evidence provided by the TRCA. As noted below, the TRCA relies on the same evidence it tendered at the original hearing in 2022.

3The Settlement arises following the invitation of the Tribunal in its Decision issued May 16, 2022 (“May-22 Decision”), following a 16-day hearing which concluded on February 9, 2022. In the May-22 Decision, the Tribunal ruled as follows:

“[82] Based on the evidence as described in Part 3 above, and particularly as set out in the findings of the Tribunal concerning cultural and natural heritage matters and incompatibility set out in Part 3 (iv) and Part 3 (v), the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Development as proposed should be approved.

83On the other hand, the Tribunal is of the view that the Subject Site is suitable for intensification and that a building broadly similar to the Development with reduced height and massing would be appropriate and could be designed and constructed in a fashion that does meet the requirements of the PA, the PPS, the Growth Plan and the Bolton HCD Plan.

86Of course, it is not the role of the OLT to devise the appropriate design and construction details of new buildings on the Subject Site for the Parties’ consideration…and will offer some suggestions as to the broad parameters of a possible revised development that could be discussed and negotiated by the Parties if they wish to continue their discussions and negotiations as follows:

a) repositioning and reducing the building footprint so that it is further set back from adjacent properties;

b) an overall building height of approximately 4 storeys, including rooftop mechanical penthouse facilities;

c) reduced massing and greater step-backs of all floors above ground-level;

d) reconsideration of the parking facilities with a view to minimizing their required space and the overall impact on views from and toward a new building; and

(iv) the use of exterior materials more compatible with the heritage attributes of the Town along with additional, denser landscaping and plantings surrounding the new building.”

4Following the May-22 Decision, the Town and the Applicants worked together for more than three years to fashion a resolution which led to the Settlement.

5The materials delivered for the Motion were:

(a) Settlement Motion Record of the Applicants, dated July 14, 2025, comprising 128 pages;

(b) Responding Motion Record of the TRCA dated August 22, 2025, comprising 249 pages;

(c) Reply Affidavit of Martin Quarcoopome, sworn August 26, 2025, comprising 18 pages;

(d) Decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal issued April 14, 2025, in OLT-23-000360, comprising 20 pages;

(e) Applicants’ Outline of Argument, dated September 5, 2025, comprising 12 pages;

(f) TRCA Outline of Argument, dated September 5, 2025, comprising 22 pages;

(g) Applicants’ Reply Outline of Argument, dated September 8, 2025, comprising 5 pages;

(h) TRCA Sur-Reply Submissions, dated September 10, 2025, comprising 3 pages; and

(i) Town’s Submission, dated September 16, 2025, comprising 2 pages (with additional 4 pages of email correspondence to the Tribunal from counsel for the Applicants and counsel for the TRCA).

TRCA Opposition to the Settlement is Based on Claimed Errors/Failures in the May-22 Decision and in the Executive Chair’s Disposition

6The TRCA opposes the Settlement on an unusual basis. It has tendered no new planning evidence to challenge this consent Motion. In fact, at the Motion, the TRCA conceded that the evidence and arguments it was relying on were unchanged from those it proffered at the 2022 hearing which culminated in the May-22 Decision. Instead, the TRCA argues that the May-22 Decision was in error and failed to make determinations on the key issues, evidence and arguments provided by the TRCA in the 2022 hearing pertaining to the natural hazards and negative impacts stemming from the development proposed by the Applicant. The TRCA insists that those issues still exist with respect to the Settlement and argues that this Tribunal must consider them on this Motion. It seeks the scheduling of a further hearing to consider the OPA and ZBA now proposed in the settlement – only as an alternative to the outright dismissal of Motion to approve the Settlement.

7The TRCA also argued that in ruling on its Request for Review of the May-22 Decision (“Request”), the Executive Chair of the Tribunal erred and failed to recognize the ‘failures to make determinations’ inherent in the May-22 Decision in his Disposition of the Request for Review dated November 4, 2022 (“Disposition”) which dismissed that Request.

8The Tribunal notes that the majority of the submissions made by the TRCA on this Motion were focused on the alleged errors and failures in the May-22 Decision and those alleged to have been made by the Executive Chair in his Disposition. Beyond those contentions, the TRCA repeated the same evidence in opposition to the Motion as it tendered in the original appeal proceeding which led to the May-22 Decision.

9The TRCA also argued that the Tribunal improperly relied on certain evidence in its May-22 Decision when it made findings against the TRCA’s positions advanced in 2022 and preferred the evidence of witnesses for the Applicant instead of the witnesses who testified for the TRCA. In fact, it delivered a supporting affidavit of Mr. Adam Miller, Associate Director of Development Planning and Permits at the TRCA, in its Responding Motion Record to that end.

10Mr. Miller’s affidavit was delivered in his capacity as a professional land use planner who has “been qualified by the Ontario Land Tribunal (the "Tribunal") and formerly the Ontario Municipal Board and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal on numerous occasions as an expert witness in land use planning and environmental planning matters”. Yet, Mr. Miller’s affidavit is replete with argumentative references to the testimony given by other witnesses at the 2022 hearing as well as legal argument and submissions concerning his interpretation of the May-22 Decision, including, but not limited to the following (below emphasis added):

(a) As I read the 2022 Decision, the Tribunal neither dismissed the appeals nor allowed them. The Member stated that he was not satisfied that the development as proposed should be approved and made no finding that with respect to consistency with Policy 2.1.5 and 3.1.1 of the PPS 2020. Instead, the Member recommended that the Parties attempt to mediate and resolve the matter on consent;

(b) At paragraph 73… [of the May-22 Decision]… the Member indicated that, had it been necessary for him to contend with the natural heritage issues, he would not have found the proposed development to be unacceptable due to the "alleged" negative impacts and he preferred the evidence of Ms. Moore over my evidence and that of Ms. Maria Parish wherever our opinions were in conflict with Ms. Moore's… Yet, Ms. Moore did not even provide an opinion in her Witness Statement or in evidence at the 2022 Hearing that there would be "no negative impacts" to the feature itself;

(c) I also note that at paragraph 76 of the Decision, the Member stated as follows: "[76] However, as is essentially accepted by the Parties, an intensification of development on the Subject Site to permit a multi-unit residential building(s) is both acceptable and in keeping with the applicable policy framework."… To the best of my knowledge, TRCA gave no evidence and made no submissions to this effect. Indeed, the totality of the evidence provided by myself and the rest of TRCA's expert witnesses, as well as the submissions of legal counsel, indicated precisely the opposite, as the opinions of its experts and the official position of TRCA;

(d) At paragraph 73 of the 2022 Decision, the Member confirmed that he made no findings with respect to whether there would in fact be "negative impacts" to the significant valleyland or its functions. The Member neither found that there would be negative impacts nor that there would be no negative impacts. The negative impacts simply remained "alleged" at the time of the Decision;

(e) The definition of negative impacts thus specifically contemplates that while the health and integrity of the full expanse of the entire feature – i.e. – the entire Humber River Valley and all of its features and functions – may or may not be mortally threatened by a single specific development, the decision-maker is nonetheless required to consider the features and functions for which an area is identified and determine if their may be negative impacts to them.

(f) Ms. Moore admitted on cross-examination that in her witness statement her approach had been to focus exclusively on the "ecological functions" of the Subject Property; she had not addressed how it could be demonstrated that the "feature" itself – the landform of the significant valleyland – would suffer no negative impacts; and

(g) Ms. Moore was given the opportunity on cross-examination to offer up evidence that the valley wall – the feature – would suffer "no negative impacts" as a result of the proposed development. Notwithstanding the invitation, Ms. Moore was unable to provide an opinion that there would be no negative impacts to the "feature" – the landform – itself.

11The affidavit of Mr. Miller is improper since pursuant to Rule 7.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) an independent witness (particularly after executing an acknowledgement of expert’s duty) has a duty to (below emphasis added):

a. provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;

b. provide opinion evidence that is related only to the matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise

12In his affidavit delivered to assist the Tribunal, Mr. Miller should not have made arguments and statements concerning the alleged failures made in the May-22 Decision – which are clearly not within the expertise of a land use planner in any event. For those reasons, much of his affidavit could have been struck had the Applicants sought to do so by way of objection or motion. In any event, Mr. Miller’s affidavit was of little assistance to the Tribunal on the Motion and was consequently given little weight. In any event, all of its assertions were already contained in the arguments made by counsel for the TRCA in its Motion materials.

13At the Motion hearing, counsel for the TRCA was unable to cite any statutory or jurisprudential support for its core arguments based on the alleged errors made in the May-22 Decision and the Chair’s Disposition. As noted, the Tribunal therefore invited both Parties to make supplementary submissions. The Tribunal’s hearing notes indicate that counsel for the TRCA stated at the Motion hearing that the position being advocated on behalf of the TRCA on the Motion was (below emphasis added):

…You didn’t deal with all the natural hazard issues – TRCA just wants a final determination – The Disposition recognizes that your Decision did not finally determine those issues”

“…the Disposition…[of the Executive Chair]…doesn’t deal with whether there was a final determination on the natural heritage and natural hazards issue, as stated in Mr. Miller’s affidavit…”

“…the TRCA is seeking the Tribunal’s interpretation of the Decision… A ruling as to what it did or did not include in its Decision”

“as compared to the original hearing of this matter, there is no new evidence or argument being made by the TRCA – just an assertion that the Decision failed to make determinations”

“either an error was made by the Tribunal or there was an incomplete determination…or the Tribunal made findings not based upon any evidence…there was improper reliance on inadequate evidence

The TRCA Has Not Demonstrated Any Basis Upon Which a Further Review/Reconsideration of the May-22 Decision Could be Conducted

14As noted, the Tribunal invited the TRCA and the Applicants to make further written submissions of their arguments made at the conclusion of the Motion hearing. The written submissions of the Parties were delivered subsequently as detailed in paragraph [5] above.

15The TRCA’s further supplementary submissions still do not provide an explanation of how this Tribunal is empowered to conduct what is, in essence, an appellate review of both the May-22 Decision and the Chair’s Disposition. The TRCA also included an ‘issue estoppel’ argument which was not made at the original Motion hearing and was not requested by the Tribunal. In any event, that argument is irrelevant to a determination of this Motion or to the question of whether this Tribunal should carry out a review or reconsideration of the May-22 Decision and the Chair’s Disposition.

16The TRCA Request for Review was made subsequent to the issuance of the May-22 Decision pursuant to section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, S.O. 2021 (“OLTA”) and Rule 25. Neither section 23 of OLTA nor Rule 25 – or any other Rule for that matter – specifically contemplates the novel argument made by the TRCA, namely that this Tribunal has the obligation to reinterpret, correct or revise the May-22 Decision or the Chair’s Disposition. Indeed, the TRCA makes no reference to these provisions. On the other hand, in those submissions, its counsel offered yet another exhaustive critique of the May-22 Decision and, by necessary implication, the Chair’s Disposition, along with another repetition of its evidentiary conclusions and arguments made at the 2022 hearing.

17It is apparent from the Chair’s Disposition, dated November 4, 2022, that the arguments now made by the TRCA on the Motion concerning the alleged errors and failures in the May-2022 Decision were also pursued in its Request for Review under Rule 25. Even if some were not made at that time, they should have been. It was also open to the TRCA to seek leave to appeal the May-2022 Decision to the Divisional Court of the Superior Court of Justice and/or to seek judicial review of the Chair’s Disposition. It chose not to do so. The TRCA has not pointed to any authority under OLTA or the Rules or in any other statute or in any jurisprudence that: (a) requires the Tribunal to conduct a reconsideration of either the May-22 Decision or the Chair’s Disposition, or (b) mandates the Tribunal on this Motion under Rule 12.1 to carry out an appellate-type review of the correctness of or failures made in the May-22 Decision or the Chair’s Disposition.

18Even if the Tribunal had the discretionary authority to carry out the review described in paragraph [17] above – which has not been demonstrated - and to further consider the alleged errors and failures relied on by the TRCA, it declines to do so. Parties to proceedings before the Tribunal are entitled to receive a final result that reflects a process that will: “offer the best opportunity for a fair, just and expeditious resolution of the merits of the proceedings” as stated in subsection 12(2) of OLTA. That process was followed here pursuant to Rule 25, as already detailed above. The May-22 Decision was not altered by the Chair’s Disposition. No appeal or judicial review application was pursued. It is in the public interest in these circumstances to respect the outcome of the process followed. On this Motion, the TRCA offers no new evidence or arguments beyond those it made following the original 16-day hearing. There is no justification to conduct a re-litigation of the matters dealt with in the May-22 Decision in another fresh hearing more than three years later at great cost and further delay to all Parties and the Tribunal.

The Proposed Settlement

19Under Rule 12.1, on this Motion the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposal arising from the Settlement reached by the Town and the Applicant meets all statutory requirements and is in the public interest. As noted in paragraph [3] above, the Settlement was reached approximately 3 years following the directions set out in the May-22 Decision. As has often been stated, the Tribunal strongly encourages Parties to craft their own resolution of matters under appeal. Here, it is apparent that much effort and cost toward that objective has been expended by the Town and the Applicant.

20The Proposal now contemplates the development of a 4-storey mid-rise residential condominium, plus a rooftop amenity and mechanical penthouse. The Proposal uses the same building envelope as the original proposal which was at issue in the 2022 hearing. Therefore, it does not give rise to new natural heritage or natural hazard issues as compared to what was considered at the 2022 hearing. As the Applicants’ counsel points out, this probably explains why the TRCA’s current opposition appears to be identical to its previous opposition.

21In terms of the criteria mentioned in the May-22 Decision, the following table prepared by the Applicant’s counsel describes a comparison with the Settlement:

22The Applicant, with the consent of the Town, relies on the Affidavit sworn on June 17, 2025 of Martin Quarcoopome, a registered land use planner and Vice-President with Weston Consulting with over 15 years of professional experience. Mr. Quarcoopome was qualified to provide opinion evidence at the original 2022 hearing on land use planning matters and there was no objection made him being so qualified for the same purposes on the Motion. He has been closely involved with this matter before 2022 and with respect to the final preparation of the Proposal.

23Mr. Quarcoopome points out in his Affidavit that:

The settlement results in the following changes from the version of the proposal reviewed by the Tribunal in the…[May-22 Decision]:

(a) a reduction in building height from 8 storeys to 4 storeys (plus rooftop amenity and MPH);

(b) a reduction in height from 26.70 metres (excluding the mechanical penthouse) to 20.70 metres (excluding the mechanical penthouse);

(c) a reduction in density (FSI) from 2.27 to 2.01;

(d) a reduction in total GFA from 17,665 square metres to 13,733 square metres;

(e) an increase in total residential units from 97 units to 101 units;

(f) a reduction in the surface parking 11 spaces to 5 spaces;

(g) a reduction in the north setback from 15.62 metres to 6.80 metres; and

(h) a reduction in combined indoor and outdoor amenity area from 1,781 square metres to 1,714 square metres.

24In reviewing the OPA and ZBA underlying the Settlement, the Tribunal considered whether they satisfy the matters of provincial interest under section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”); are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS”), 2024; and conform with the provisions of the in-force Town Official Plan; and conform to the Town of Caledon Bolton Secondary Plan Review. Conformance with the 2024 Town Official Plan (although it is not yet in force and thus not yet applicable) is not required but has still been dealt with as part of the Motion. This proposed Settlement must also be fair and reasonable and represent good planning. In the unique circumstances of this proceeding, the Tribunal also considered whether its suggestions as set out in the May-22 Decision, and referenced in paragraph [3] above have been adequately addressed.

25The Town staff and the Town Council agrees with the Applicant that all of the requirements described in paragraph [24] are met by the Proposal, which is the culmination of several years of public consultation and active involvement by the Town, the stewards of the two Official Plans noted above. The Town also supports the findings and conclusions of Mr. Quarcoopome as expressed in his affidavit. There is no public opposition to the Proposal before the Tribunal.

26The sole opposition to the Proposal is made by the TRCA. As pointed out by counsel for the Applicant, the TRCA actually has no planning role in respect of this matter and there is no permit required from it in respect of this now scaled-down housing development:

The TRCA exercises permit issuing jurisdiction for “development activities” within their regulated areas, but their mandate no longer includes the general “conservation of land”. The within appeal does not involve a TRCA permit application. The TRCA was added as a party to these proceedings back in 2020, but if these OPA and ZBA instruments were before Town Council for approval today, the TRCA could not appeal Council’s decision.

27The Tribunal has reviewed and considered Mr. Quarcoopome’s evidence as set out in detail within his affidavit and which also derives in part from his evidence delivered at the 2022 hearing. It need not be fully repeated here. In summary, his opinions and conclusions are that the Proposal:

a) represent good planning for the Subject Property and are in the public interest;

b) represent the product of cooperation between the Applicant and the Town in accordance with the directions provided by the Tribunal in the Interim Decision;

c) have regard for matters of provincial interest;

d) are consistent with current provincial planning policies;

e) conform with in-force Town of Caledon planning policies, including policies inherited from the former Region of Peel Official Plan; and

f) conform with the 2024 Town of Caledon Official Plan as adopted by Town Council.

28Although the main focus of the TRCA’s opposition to the Proposal is rooted in its arguments that the May-22 Decision and the Chair’s Disposition contained errors and failed to make required determinations, it also relied on the affidavit of Mr. Miller to challenge the opinions of Mr. Quarcoopome.

29As noted, the argumentative tone and content of Mr. Miller’s affidavit led the Tribunal to conclude that it was generally not independent and thus non-assistive. Fifty-seven of the 61 paragraphs of Mr. Miller’s affidavit repeat the claimed conclusions and evidentiary assertions offered at the 16-day hearing in 2022 and offer a partisan critique of the May-22 Decision and the Chair’s Disposition. However, leaving aside those unnecessary and ill-advised elements, Mr. Miller repeats and relies on his own evidence and that of the other TRCA witnesses who testified at the 2022 hearing and states in 3 short paragraphs:

58. I have reviewed the Affidavit of Martin Quarcoopome sworn June 17, 2025 and its accompanying exhibits.

59. While the revised proposed development is somewhat reduced in size compared to the proposed development that was the subject of the 2022 Hearing, it still proposes a new condominium building requiring the removal of the slope of a significant valleyland and is also within the area Dr. Shirazi identified as being "hazardous lands", within the meaning of the PPS 2020.

60. I continue to adopt and rely upon my prior witness statements and oral testimony as previously provided in this proceeding. For the reasons set out therein regarding there being inconsistency with the proposed development and Sections 2.1 and 3.1 of the PPS 2020, it is my opinion that the new revised proposed development of the Appellant remains inconsistent with Sections 4.1 and 5.2 of the PPS 2024.

30In its Responding Motion Record and in all supplementary submissions delivered, the TRCA’s counsel dramatically expands upon the themes contained in Mr. Miller’s affidavit – and the TRCA expert evidence tendered in 2022 – in making a wide-ranging argument that, in addition to the errors/failures in the May-22 Decision and the Chair’s Disposition, Mr. Quarcoopome has still not properly addressed the matters that the Tribunal must consider on this Motion and that therefore the Tribunal must not approve the Settlement.

31In his Reply Affidavit filed for this Motion, Mr. Quarcoopome opined that with respect to the PPS, 2024:

… these policies carry forward the substance of PPS 2020 Sections 2.1 and 3.1, which were directly addressed in my October 2021 Witness Statement (paras. 112, 121) and in my oral evidence at the 2022 hearing. At that time, I concluded that the proposed development was consistent with PPS 2020 Section 2.1 (natural heritage) and Section 3.1 (natural hazards), based on the work and analyses carried out by the Applicant/Appellant’s consulting team, which included a qualified ecologist and a qualified soil engineer

32The Tribunal agrees on this point and accepts and relies upon Mr. Quarcoopome’s opinion and upon a full review of the changes made in the proposed development project in response to the Tribunal’s concerns expressed in its May-22 Decision as now reflected in the Settlement, finds that it will now be consistent with the ‘natural heritage’ and ‘natural hazards’ provisions of the PPS, 2024. The Tribunal notes again that its stated preference for other evidence over Mr. Quarcoopome’s opinions at the 2022 hearing was expressly limited to cultural heritage matters only, which is further discussed below.

33Interestingly, for the first time in its supplementary written argument, the TRCA contended that the Proposal and the evidence of Mr. Quarcoopome does not “…address the cultural heritage policy non-consistency [sic]…” found in the May-22 Decision. The TRCA did not raise that issue at the 2022 hearing since the cultural heritage evidence at that time was solely tendered by the Town in opposition to the Applicant’s position. All of the TRCA’s evidence and arguments made in 2022 concerned solely natural heritage issues. Counsel for the Applicant argues forcefully against this (below emphasis added):

The TRCA did not raise cultural heritage issues in the original proceeding and did not call any cultural heritage evidence. Yet in response to this Settlement Motion the TRCA is now, independent of the Town, asserting cultural heritage as an issue This is – again – outrageous on the part of a public commenting agency that has no independent jurisdiction or expertise in respect of local cultural heritage matters.

34The Tribunal agrees that the TRCA on this motion ought not to make new arguments in relation to matters it did not raise at the 2022 hearing. Nonetheless, the Tribunal has considered those contentions but notes that the TRCA offers no evidence on cultural heritage issues in relation to the Proposal – it simply argues that the Tribunal failed to finally decide that issue and must now do so on this Motion. This is part of its insistence that there were errors and failures inherent in the May-22 Decision which ought to be reconsidered and presumably reversed on this Motion. As already determined above, the Tribunal declines to do so.

35The Tribunal further notes that matters of cultural heritage arise under the Town’s Official Plans and that both Town Staff and the Town’s Council have expressly agreed to and authorized the Settlement. Given the fact that the Town’s opposition on cultural heritage issues has thereby ended, and that no evidence has been called on those issues in opposition to the Settlement, the Tribunal is able to conclude that there is no basis on those grounds for disapproval of the settlement. In any event, since cultural heritage matters are addressed directly in the Town’s Official Plan and to some extent in the PPS and the Tribunal has before it unchallenged fresh evidence that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Official Plan, the Tribunal concludes that there are no cultural heritage issues that exist that justify the disapproval of the Settlement.

36In addition, the Tribunal has considered the Settlement in the context of its findings and analysis in the May-22 Decision which were based on all of the evidence tendered in the 2022 hearing and which had expressed its concerns about the former development being pursued by the Applicant. After doing so, the Tribunal has concluded that its previous concerns regarding cultural heritage matters stemming from the original development have now been satisfactorily addressed – this is due to the new elements concerning reduced building form, massing, height etc. as is summarized in the table following paragraph [20] above. It is unnecessary for the Tribunal to exhaustively recount here all the evidence and findings it set out in the May-22 Decision nor to conduct any further hearing on those matters – the only Parties which could call evidence on those issues have both agreed to the Proposal.

37The key issues upon which the TRCA opposed the original OPA and ZBA sought by the Applicant at the 2022 hearing related solely to natural hazard and natural heritage matters. The TRCA now seeks to rely on and has essentially re-argued all of the same evidence it tendered 3 years ago which it contends has not been addressed on this Motion:

For the reasons set out in the written and oral evidence of Ms. Parish, Dr. Shirazi, Mr. Ford and Mr. Miller given at the 2022 Hearing and confirmed in their affidavits, the Revised Proposal also remains inconsistent with the policies of Section 4.1 and Section 5.2 of the PPS 2024 and does not conform with the natural heritage and natural hazard policies of the Peel OP

38The Tribunal refers to its findings made in the May-22 Decision after extensive consideration of the evidence from the TRCA’s experts through direct, cross and re-direct examination (below emphasis added):

72Given the findings set out in Part 3 above concerning cultural heritage matters and its Conclusions concerning the currently proposed Development as set out in Part 4, the Tribunal is of the view that it is unnecessary to make any detailed findings on the issue of negative impacts on the valleyland and the significant woodland adjacent to the Subject Site (collectively, “Negative Impacts”).

73However, leaving aside its rulings on cultural heritage attributes, the Tribunal would not have found that the currently proposed Development would be unacceptable due to these alleged Negative Impacts. In that regard, the Tribunal accepts the opinions and conclusions of Ms. Whitney Moore of Dillon Consulting, who provided a WS, Reply WS and who provided opinion evidence at the VH as an expert in matters of biology and ecology - wherever those opinions were in conflict with: (i) the evidence of Ms. Maria Parish who provided opposing evidence on behalf of the TRCA which employs her as a Senior Planning Ecologist and (ii) the evidence of Mr. Adam Miller who is the TRCA’s Senior Manager, Development Planning and Permits and provided a WS and oral testimony for the TRCA at the VH as a land use and environmental planner.

39For the reasons already provided, the Tribunal is not required to conduct a review/reconsideration of the May-22 Decision or the Chair’s Disposition. Moreover, the Tribunal repeats its findings as described in paragraph [38] and reiterates that it has already decided the matters now raised once again by the TRCA in an effort to persuade the Tribunal to reverse its determinations. The Tribunal will not do so and also sees no need on this Motion to ‘justify’ its rulings by repeating the basis for the findings it made in the May-22 Decision or to revisit a lengthy analysis of the voluminous evidence filed by the TRCA for the 2022 hearing and then re-filed on this Motion.

CONCLUSIONS

40The Tribunal accepts and relies on the opinion evidence of Mr. Quacoopome and finds that the Settlement proposed by the Town and the Applicant satisfies all matters of provincial interest set out in section 3 of the Act; conforms to the provisions of the Town’s In-Force Official Plan and also to the provisions of the Town’s 2024 Official Plan; is consistent with the requirements of the PPS, 2024; and represents good planning in the public interest and notes that when built it will provide more than 100 new housing units in the Town.

41The Tribunal is also satisfied that the concerns and suggestions it expressed at the conclusion of its May-22 Decision have been fully addressed by the Settlement and in the supporting materials put forward by the Applicant on this Motion.

42The Tribunal further concludes as follows:

(a) Given that the TRCA sought a Request for Review under Rule 25 of the May-22 Decision and that the Chair’s Disposition dated November 4, 2022 declined such Request, there is no demonstrated statutory or jurisprudential basis requiring this Tribunal to conduct a further review / redetermination of its May-22 Decision and/or the Chair’s Disposition in order to address alleged errors or failures; and

(b) This Tribunal declines to conduct a further review / redetermination of its May-22 Decision or of the Chair’s Disposition in order to address alleged errors or failures.

ORDER

43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. Subject to the Orders made below, the motion brought by the Applicant and the Town of Caledon for approval of their settlement based on the instruments described below is granted;

2. The motion brought by the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority to dismiss the Applicant’s motion described in section 1 above and the Applicant’s appeals herein; or, in the alternative, to seek an Order to convene a Case Management Conference in order to schedule an additional hearing of certain matters, is denied;

3. The Official Plan for the Town of Caledon is hereby amended as set out in the Official Plan Amendment included as Attachment “1” hereto; and

4. The Town of Caledon Zoning By-law No. 2006-50, is hereby amended as set out in the Zoning By-law Amendment included as Attachment “2” hereto;

5. The municipal clerk of the Town of Caledon is authorized to assign and/or revise the policy and/or regulatory numbers shown in Attachments “1” and “2” as needed to ensure their respective implementation; and

6. This Vice Chair shall be seized in respect of any matters arising from the Order made above.

“William R. Middleton”

WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON

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.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2