Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 26, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000526

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1413506 Ontario Limited

Appellant: 2442760 Ontario Limited

Appellant: 2601370 Ontario Inc. et. al.

Appellant: John DeMarco

Appellant: L.A. Land Corporation

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description: To implement the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan to guide the urbanization of lands within the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan Area (OPA 2)

Reference Number: 37-OP-2025-005

Property Address: Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan Area

Municipality/UT: LaSalle/Essex

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000526

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000526

OLT Case Name: 1413506 Ontario Limited et. al v. LaSalle (Town)

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

Request by: Sorge Enterprises Inc.

Motion for: Directions

Heard: October 29, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
1413506 Ontario Limited	Analee Baroudi
10447005 Canada Limited	Jonathan Minnes, Kevin Dias
2601370 Ontario Inc.	Jonathan Minnes, Kevin Dias
Laurier Heights Development Inc.	Jonathan Minnes, Kevin Dias
Mira Developments Inc.	Jonathan Minnes, Kevin Dias
2442760 Ontario Limited	Lee English
John DeMarco	Jennifer Evola, Daniel Jolic (articling student)
L.A. Land Corporation	Jeffrey Hewitt
Town of LaSalle	Denise Baker, Kelin Algayer
County of Essex	Claire Bebbington
Propower Mfg Inc.	Lee English
Crossingview Development Inc.	Analee Baroudi
Sorge Enterprises Inc.	Edwin Hooker

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. Ng ON October 29, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

Background

1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened for appeals brought pursuant to s. 17(36) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for an Official Plan Amendment No. 2 (“OPA 2”) in the Town of LaSalle (“Town”), County of Essex (“County”) regarding eight appeals, Appeal No. 011915 (“1413506 Ontario Limited”), Appeal No. 011916 (“L.A. Land Corporation”), Appeal No. 011917 (“John DeMarco”), Appeal No. 011923 (“2442760 Ontario Limited“), Appeal No. 011924 (“2601370 Ontario Inc.“), Appeal No. 011936 (“Mira Developments Inc.“), Appeal No. 011937 (“10447005 Canada Limited“) and Appeal No. 011938 (“Laurier Heights Development Inc.“).

2The approved Amendment No. Official Plan Amendment 2 (Municipal Reference No. 37-OP-2025-005/By-law no. 2025-020) (“OPA 2”) is to implement the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan to guide the urbanization of lands within the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan Area.

3The purpose is to establish a comprehensive land use planning and urban design, transportation and municipal service infrastructure policy framework to guide new development in the secondary plan area.

Affidavit of Service of CMC

4The County’s Affidavit of Service marked as Exhibit A, was filed for service effected on October 8, 2025. This was nine days short of the 30 days directed. However, counsel informed the Tribunal that it was an unintended oversight and on October 8, 2025, the County had served everyone on the mailing list as required. Further, all Appellants which were served had attended the CMC as intended. There was no prejudice caused by the short service and the County counsel requested an abridgement of time for the affidavit of service. All Parties did not object to the abridgement of time. The Tribunal allowed the abridgement pursuant to Rule 3.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Tribunal Rules”) since all intended Parties were present at the CMC and no prejudice was caused to any party.

Participant and Party Status Requests

5Two Participant Status and three Party Status requests were received. The Tribunal granted Participant Status to Rachael Mills and Jonathan Choquette without objections.

6The Party Status requests were from Propower Mfg Inc.(“Propower”), Crossingview Development Inc. (“Crossingview”) and Sorge Enterprises Inc. (“Sorge”).

7The Tribunal granted Propower Party Status for the following reasons. There were no objections and Propower fulfilled the legislative tests. Additionally, Propower, is a tenant of lands belonging to appellant 2442760 Ontario Ltd. (“2442”) operating an industrial facility that is directly impacted by OPA 2. It must shelter as a non-appellant party, under the issues of an appellant. (r. 8.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules). It will shelter under the issues of 2442.

8The Party Status request by Crossingview was granted without objections. The Tribunal finds that while it did not meet the legislative tests (of oral and written submissions), it does have a direct interest in the outcome of the appeal of 2442 as Crossingview’s lands are adjacent to 2442 where an industrial facility is operating currently. There are issues of compatibility of land use and whether OPA 2 will include the Crossingview’s lands. It shall shelter under the issues of 2442, and it shall ensure that there will be no duplication of evidence at the hearing of the appeal. The Tribunal finds that adding Crossingview as a Party will assist the Tribunal in the adjudication of the appeal.

9Sorge had also submitted a Notice of Motion with Motion Record (“Motion”) for the main purpose of requesting the Tribunal to grant it Appellant Party Status for the reasons described in the Motion. This Motion was dealt with after the CMC non-contentious matters were disposed of. The Town had filed a Response to the motion, (“the Response”) challenging Sorge’s claim to Appellant Party Status, nonetheless, the Town was amenable to Sorge being granted Non-Appellant Party Status. Sorge also filed a Reply to response materials (“the Reply”) for the Motion Hearing.

Mediation

10The Tribunal inquired and Counsel informed the Tribunal that the Appellants will separately engage with the Town to resolve their respective issues and appeals. Mediation is not contemplated at present, but the Town is open to mediation and will contact the mediation team when needed.

Draft Procedural Order

11Counsel for the Town has filed a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List. Parties collectively requested a three-week hearing to be scheduled. A total of 16 expert witnesses may be called depending on the scoping of issues for the hearing. With the hearing scheduled, Parties will fill in the deadlines and agree to submit the PO and issues list to the case coordinator by November 21, 2025. The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day hearing in September 2026, for this matter.

HEARING

12The Tribunal scheduled a 15-day Hearing to commence on Wednesday, September 9, 2026 to Tuesday, September 29, 2026 at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing. No further notice is required and this member is not seized.

13Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log into the CMC at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861

Access code: 765-631-861

14Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

15Persons 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 an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free). 1-888-455-1389. The access code is the same as the access code noted above.

16Individuals 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 CMC by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

MOTION

17As soon as the usual CMC matters were completed, the Tribunal released other Parties who were not directly interested in the outcome of the Motion and invited Sorge to proceed with its Motion. Oral submissions were heard from the moving and Responding Party (the Town).

18The Motion is for reliefs:

1. An order invalidating the County of Essex’s Notice of Decision dated June 9, 2025, respecting its approval with modifications of the above referenced Official Plan Amendment of the Town of LaSalle.

2. An order accepting the appeal of Sorge Enterprises Inc. filed with the County of Essex on October 6, 2025, (herein the Sorge Appeal) and adding Sorge Enterprises Inc. as an Appellant Party in accordance with Rule 8.2 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

3. In the alternative, an order that Sorge Enterprises Inc. be added as a non-appellant party, sheltering under the issues of the Appellants to this matter in accordance with Rule 8.3 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

4. Such further and other relief as the Tribunal may deem just.

19Parties did not contest relief No. 3 as counsel agreed that Non-Appellant Party Status may be granted.

Issues

20The issues are thus:

a. Whether the County of Essex’s Notice of Decision dated June 9, 2025, is valid?

b. Whether the Notice of Appeal filed with the County of Essex dated October 6, 2025, is within time? and

c. Whether Sorge can be added as an Appellant to the proceedings?

Chronology

21The following describes the sequence of events.

1. The Town adopted OPA 2 on February 25, 2025.

2. The County approved OPA 2 with modifications on June 9, 2025. (Notice of Decision).

3. A copy of the Notice of Decision was provided to Sorge’s solicitor on September 16, 2025.

4. Sorge’s Notice of Appeal was filed with the County on October 6, 2025.

Sorge

22It is the contention of Sorge that the Notice of Decision is deficient (“Deficient Notice”) in that it contains misleading information as to who had rights to appeal, specifically excluding those having rights under subsection 17(36)(1.2) of the Act (such as Sorge Enterprises Inc.).

23Section 17(36) of the Act states:

Appeal to Tribunal

(36) Any of the following may, not later than 20 days after the day that the giving of notice under subsection (35) is completed, appeal all or part of the decision of the approval authority to the Tribunal by filing a notice of appeal with the approval authority:

1. A specified person who, before the plan was adopted, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

1.1 A public body that, before the plan was adopted, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

1.2 The registered owner of any land to which the plan would apply, if, before the plan was adopted, the owner made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

2. The Minister.

3. In the case of a request to amend the plan, the person or public body that made the request.

24The Deficient Notice fails to state that “the registered owner of any land to which the plan would apply, if, before the plan was adopted, the owner made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council” has the right to file an appeal.

25The Deficient Notice states the following as being able to file an appeal: a specified person (as defined by the Planning Act) who, before the plan was adopted, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the Council; a public body (as defined by the Planning Act) who, before the plan was adopted, made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the Council; the Minister; or the applicant. (note: A ‘specified person’ under the Planning Act does not include registered owners having rights under subsection 17(36)(1.2)).

26As such, Sorge, a registered owner under subsection 17(36)(1.2) is misled as to their right of appeal under the Planning Act. According to Sorge, the County has acknowledged this deficiency and amended their notice precedent for future use.

27Sorge stated that the deficiency in the Deficient Notice renders it invalid and of no force or effect with respect to the running of the appeal period against Sorge.

28A copy of the Deficient Notice was requested, in writing, by and eventually provided to Ed Hooker, solicitor for Sorge on September 16, 2025, by the County and the appeal of Sorge was filed with the County on October 6, 2025, being within the prescribed timeline for providing a notice to appeal under the Planning Act as calculated from September 16, 2025, Sorge contended.

29The moving party referred to the case of Port Franks Carts Inc./OWCLA v. Lambton Shores (Municipality), 2018 CanLII 80767 (ON LPAT) (“Port Franks”) and submitted that where there was a deficient notice, the appropriate remedy was to direct the approval authority to cure that deficiency and provide it to the appropriate persons. At a minimum, counsel submitted that the cured deficiency should be provided to Sorge. Given the misleading nature of the Deficient Notice, the cured deficiency should also be provided to any other registered owner that may similarly fall under subsection 17(36)(1.2) of the Act.

30Sorge contended that since it satisfied the test for being added as a party to this proceeding, as set out in r. 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules, it should be made an Appellant Party. The Tribunal finds that this is an errant reading of r.8.2, which relates to adding a Party to the proceedings, not, as it were, to allow a party to become an Appellant.

31Sorge also cited North Gwillimbury Forest Alliance v Georgina (Town), 2017 CanLII 36185 (ON LPAT) (“N. Gwillimbury”) where an alleged defective Notice of Decision there resulted in the affected party being granted party status pending its quest for a remedy as regards its appeal out of time.

Town

32The Town adopted OPA 2 on February 25, 2025, pursuant to sections 17 and 21 of the Act, which was subsequently approved by the County, with modifications, on June 9, 2025.

33OPA 2 was adopted by the Town following more than two years of comprehensive and coordinated land-use planning exercise, which included public consultation and the completion of all necessary and relevant studies and assessments. These steps were undertaken by the Town in accordance with applicable planning requirements. Further, a statutory public meeting was held on October 29, 2024.

34A Notice of Decision was issued by the County on June 9, 2025 indicating that the last date for filing an appeal was June 29, 2025.

35The Town submitted that Sorge relied on the contention that it was entitled to receive notice of the Notice of Decision and that, because it did not receive such a notice, it should be permitted to file an appeal outside of the statutory timeframe.

36Counsel stated that pursuant to subsection s. 17(35) of the Act, the Approval Authority is only required to provide written notice of its decision as follows:

Notice

(35) If the approval authority makes a decision under subsection (34), it shall ensure that written notice of its decision is given in the prescribed manner to,

a. the council or planning board that adopted the plan;

b. each person or public body that made a written request to be notified of the decision;

b. each municipality or planning board to which the plan would apply if approved; and

c. any other person or public body that is prescribed.

[emphasis added]

37As acknowledged in paragraph 12.b.ii of the Motion, Sorge “verbally communicated such request to Ms. Rebecca Belanger… through Karl Tanner and David Ashbourne… one week prior to the County’s approval with modifications…”.

38Town counsel stressed that such verbal communication is clearly insufficient to establish a right to receive notice under subsection s. 17(35) of the Act.

39In paragraph 9 of the Affidavit of Mr. Karl Tanner, he acknowledged that he made a verbal request of Ms. Belanger to provide a copy of the Notice of Decision on June 19, 2025 (see para 8 of affidavit), which was not one week prior to the County’s approval as set out in the Motion but rather approximately 2 weeks following the County’s approval of OPA 2.

40The County only received written request for a copy of the Notice of Decision on September 15th, 2025, more than three months following the decision being rendered by the County. The County provided Sorge with such a copy one day later, on September 16th, 2025.

41In addition to the Notice of Decision, which was issued in accordance with the requirements of subsection 17(35) of the Planning Act, the Notice of Decision was made publicly available on both the Town and the County’s website.

42There is no evidence before the Tribunal in the Motion of any written request having been made to the County by the Moving Party prior to September 15th, 2025.

43The Town submitted that the Notice of Decision issued by the County on June 9th, 2025, in respect of OPA 2, fully complied with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements under the Act and O. Reg. 543/06 and is properly drafted and distributed. Further, the Notice of Decision satisfies each statutory and regulatory requirement.

44Section 17(34) of the Act states:

Action by approval authority

(34)The approval authority may confer with any person or public body that it considers may have an interest in the plan and may,

a) approve, modify and approve as modified or refuse to approve a plan; or

b) approve, modify and approve as modified or refuse to approve part or parts of the plan.

45Counsel submitted that in the instant case, the approval authority is the County, and the written request must be given to the County.

46In summary, the Town submitted that Sorge has not met the statutory requirements for bringing an appeal and the Tribunal cannot convert an invalid appeal into a valid appeal despite Sorge having filed appeal documents which are wholly out of time.

47The Town cited cases Scott v, Clarence-Rockland (City), 2022 CarswellOnt 16666 (“Scott”) at para 34; Comeau v. Ottawa (City), 2023 CarswellOnt 9438 (“Comeau”) at para 31 and Clark v. Oshawa (City), 2022 CarswellOnt 3473 (“Clark”) at para 37, all of which affirmed the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction to extend time for appeals.

Decision

48The Tribunal finds that the County’s Notice of Decision has met the legislative prescriptive requirements and is not deficient. The Sorge’s Notice of appeal is out of time and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend time for Sorge to file the appeal. Hence it cannot be added as an Appellant to the proceedings.

County Notice of Decision is valid

49The requirement to give Notice of Decision of Approval of OPA 2 is to requestors who have given written notice in writing to the Approval Authority, s. 17(35) of the Act. The Approval Authority in this case is the County. Sorge has admittedly only given verbal notice to Ms. Belanger, of the County to receive Notice of Decision, where the Town is not the Approval Authority. Actual written request for a copy of the County’s Notice of Decision was made on September 15, 2025. The next day, September 16, 2025, the County provided the Notice of Decision to Sorge’s solicitor.

50The prescribed manner on information in a Notice of Decision is stated in s. 17(35) of the Act and s. 8.1 of O. Reg 543/06:

Notice of approval authority’s decision (s. 17 (35) of Act)

s.8.1 O. Reg 543/06

8. (1) In addition to the explanation required by clause 17 (35.1) (a) of the Act, notice of the approval authority’s decision in respect of a proposed official plan or plan amendment under subsection 17 (35) of the Act shall include the following:

9. An explanation of the purpose and effect of the proposed official plan or plan amendment.

10. A statement that the approval authority has made a decision to approve, modify and approve or refuse the proposed official plan or plan amendment, as the case may be.

11. If the approval authority has made a decision to refuse the proposed official plan or plan amendment, a written explanation for the refusal.

12. Where and when information in respect of the proposed official plan or plan amendment and the decision will be available to the public for inspection.

13. If applicable, the last date for filing a notice of appeal, and a statement that the notice of appeal,

i.must be filed with the approval authority,

ii.must set out the reasons for the appeal and the specific part of the proposed official plan or plan amendment to which the appeal applies, and

iii.must be accompanied by the fee required by the Tribunal.

51The relevant prescribed manner on information as described above is contained in the Notice of Decision.

52There is no requirement to furnish the details that Sorge’s counsel alluded to, i.e. the reference to “the registered owner of the property…”.

53So long as the prescribed manner on information is provided in the Notice of Decision, the notice is not deficient. The Tribunal finds that the Notice of Decision complies with s. 17(35) of the Act and s. 8.1 of O. Reg. 543/06. Therefore, the Notice of Decision is not deficient or defective as alleged. The Tribunal finds that the Notice of Decision is valid.

Sorge’s Notice of Appeal

54Section 17(36) of the Act requires a Notice of Appeal to be filed not later than 20 days of the Notice of Decision of the approval authority. The County’s Notice of Decision approving the OPA 2 with modifications was on June 9, 2025. As such the last date to file an appeal would be June 29, 2025.

55The purported Notice of Appeal was filed with the County on October 6, 2025, which was out of the appeal filing deadline. Sorge’s reason was that it did not receive Notice of Decision and that the time does not run against it. The Tribunal finds that it has given a verbal request, which does not entitle it to receive Notice of Decision (as the statute requires written notice to be given). The only written request to the County was that given on September 15, 2025. Since the Tribunal found that the Notice of Decision is valid, the time to file the appeal expired on June 29, 2025. The Notice of Appeal is thus out of time.

56Sorge cited two authorities to support its case for the Tribunal to direct the County to reissue the Notice of Decision or alternatively to deem the September 16, 2025, Notice of Decision to Sorge as the proper notice to it, and thereby would validate the Notice of Appeal that Sorge filed. The authorities are the Port Franks; and the N. Gwillimbury cases.

57The Tribunal finds that those authorities cited do not assist Sorge. There, the Parties acknowledged defects or deficiencies in the Notice of Decision, and to which Parties were cooperating to ameliorate the situation. These Tribunal authorities do not bind this panel. The N. Gwillimbury case, specifically noted that the affected party requested for Party Status to have a seat in the proceedings, while counsel for the affected entity contemplated filing an action in the court where there appears to be a precedent for resolving the defective notice of decision and out of time notice of appeal issue. There, counsel for the affected entity acknowledged that its remedy lies in the courts.

58In the instant case, the Notice of Decision is not deficient and there is no account of Parties cooperating on a defective Notice of Decision. The facts of the case at hand are distinguishable from the above two cases cited.

Jurisdiction

59The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend a statutory time period for filing appeals or to allow an appeal to be made after the expiry of the appeal period under the Act. This principle is well established, e.g. Scott v, Clarence-Rockland (City), 2022 CarswellOnt 16666 para 34 and Comeau v. Ottawa (City), 2023 CarswellOnt 9438 at para 31.

60In Scott, a s. 17(36) Planning Act matter, at para 34 “The Tribunal informed the Appellant it is not possible by way of an appeal to extend the appeal deadline established by the Planning Act”.

61In Comeau, a s. 34(19) Planning Act matter at para 31:

It is not disputed that the Notice does not explain how the decision is inconsistent, fails to conform with or conflicts with the OP. Likewise, it is not disputed that the appeal period expired on July 7, 2022. The appeal period and the requirements of the Notice detailed in s. 34(19.0.1) are stipulated in the Act and are not discretionary. The Act is a statutory planning policy document approved by the Legislature and the Tribunal's authority is limited to only those express powers granted to it under the Act. There is a long line of Tribunal decisions in which it has been determined that the Tribunal does not have the discretionary power to waive compliance with the statutory requirements of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that it does not have the ability or authority to extend the Notice period or to permit the Appellant to enhance the reasons for the appeal after the expiry of the appeal period. In the circumstances, the Tribunal finds there is no reasonable prospect that the appeal will be successful.

62The Tribunal does not have inherent jurisdiction and may only exercise powers expressly conferred by statute. It cannot consider appeals that fail to comply with statutory requirements, including the ones related to the deadline for filing appeals. This is confirmed in Clark v. Oshawa (City), 2022 Carswell 3473 at para 37.

63In Clark, a s. 29(5) Ontario Heritage Act matter, at para 37:

Furthermore, despite the arguments of the Objector and the ACO, the Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction. Like all tribunals, of any kind, it only has the power given to it specifically by statute and no more. Only the superior courts have inherent jurisdiction, over all manner of things, being common law courts, unless a statute specifically assigns a particular jurisdiction elsewhere.

64The decision in Port Franks Carts Inc./OWLCA v. Lambton Shores (Municipality) 2018 CanLII 80767 (ON LPAT) confirms the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction to extend time for an appeal.

65In Port Franks, a s.17(36) Planning Act matter, at para 13: “Many appeals pursuant to the Planning Act must be made within the time periods set out in the legislation; the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to modify these statutory time periods”.

66As for the Tribunal’s finding in Port Franks that the notice can be reissued, the determination was based on the parties’ agreement that there was an error with the issuance of the notice. There is no such error in the instant case.

Conclusion

67In conclusion, the Tribunal lacks authority to permit the filing of the appeal outside the statutory appeal period. The Notice of Decision is not deficient and will not be invalidated. The Sorge’s appeal cannot be accepted.

68Sorge referenced the Ontario Municipal Board Act (“OMBA”) (N. Gwillimbury), which statute was repealed on April 3, 2018. The current Ontario Land Tribunal Act (“OLTA”) does not have equivalent provisions of s. 37 (c) of the OMBA (repealed and need not be considered) cited in the N. Gwillimbury case. Sorge inferred that the Tribunal could, under the OLTA s. 8 jurisdiction and OLTA s. 9 powers, order that the Notice of appeal was filed within time, and to deem that time only began from September 16, 2025, when the County’s Notice of Decision was received by Sorge.

69The Tribunal notes that the Tribunal Rules were made under s. 13 of the OLTA. Rule 3.2 is clear in that “The Tribunal may extend or reduce any time required in these rules or in a Tribunal order, with any terms or conditions, unless a statute or regulation provides otherwise. The Tribunal cannot extend a time period to file an appeal prescribed in a statute.”

70Sorge posits that s. 8 of the OLTA, “exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters in which jurisdiction is conferred on it by this or any other Act”; and s. 9(1) OLTA powers, granting “the Tribunal authority to make orders or give directions as may be necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers conferred on the Tribunal under this or any other Act”, enable this panel to grant the reliefs sought. However, the first thing to understand is that the jurisdiction must be conferred on the Tribunal before there is exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine a particular matter.

71The Tribunal is a creature of statute and its authority is defined accordingly. There is no ability or power to extend a statutory time period for filing an appeal. No jurisdiction to determine and extend the appeal statutory time period in the Act, in this case, of a s. 17(36) appeal was ever conferred to the Tribunal. Sorge’s request for the Tribunal to deem a Notice of Appeal filed October 6, 2025 (over 3 months out of time), is akin to ignoring the statutory 20 days deadline and substituting say, 100 days instead. The Tribunal has no such authority or jurisdiction to do so.

72Furthermore, Sorge’s request to be made an Appellant Party under r.8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules, “Power to add or substitute a party”, is misconceived, as the rule allows the Tribunal to “add a party to a proceeding when that person satisfies applicable legislative tests necessary to be a party and the Tribunal has reasonable grounds to do so…”. The rule allows a Party to be added, but not for an Appellant who missed an appeal deadline to be added as an ‘appellant’. Should the Tribunal do so, it would amount to extending the statutory time for filing an appeal. In any event, this r. 8.2 does not apply to relief number 2 of the Motion but applies only to Sorge’s request for party status.

73The Tribunal finds that the Sorge’s Notice of Appeal is out of time and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend time for filing the appeal.

74Sorge requested Party Status as an alternative remedy in its Motion materials, this request is granted. The Responding Party, the Town, consents to Sorge being granted Party Status. The Tribunal finds that Sorge has fulfilled the legislative tests of having made oral submissions at a public meeting and written submissions to Town council. It is a Party with a direct interest in the outcome of the appeal and will be prejudiced if excluded. There are reasonable grounds to grant Party Status to Sorge to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate completely. It shall shelter under the issues of an Appellant under r.8.3 of the Tribunal Rules.

ORDER

75THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

(a) Participant Status is granted to Rachael Mills and to Jonathan Choquette.

(b) Party Status is granted to Propower Mfg Inc. and it shall shelter under the issues of Appellant 2442760 Ontario Limited.

(c) Party Status is granted to Crossingview Development Inc. and it shall shelter under the issues of Appellant 2442760 Ontario Limited.

(d) The Motion brought by Sorge Enterprises Inc. is allowed in part where only relief no. ‘3’ is granted while reliefs no. ‘1 and 2’ are denied.

(e) Sorge Enterprises Inc. is granted Non-Appellant Party Status and shall shelter under the issue of an Appellant. The election to shelter shall be made and notified to the Tribunal and the relevant party within 14 days of this order.

(f) Parties to file the Procedural Order with Issues List by November 21, 2025. The Procedural Order has been filed and attached as Schedule 1 to this order. It shall govern the proceedings.

“T.F. NG”

T.F. NG

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.

Schedule 1

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1413506 Ontario Limited

Appellant: 2442760 Ontario Limited

Appellant: 2601370 Ontario Inc. et. al.

Appellant: John DeMarco

Appellant: L.A. Land Corporation

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description: To implement the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan to guide the urbanization of lands within the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan Area (OPA 2)

Reference Number: 37-OP-2025-005

Property Address: Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan Area

Municipality/UT: LaSalle/Essex

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000526

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000526

OLT Case Name: 1413506 Ontario Limited et. al v. LaSalle (Town)

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 Wednesday, September 9, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.. The Hearing will run until Tuesday, September 29, 2026.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is three (3) weeks. 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 procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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, except if the Issues List is modified to reduce issues, or in order to address anticipated changes to the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan or through mediation or pursuant to a settlement between any of the parties, or is otherwise on consent of the parties.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 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. 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 March 6, 2026 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.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have [a] meeting(s) on or before April 2, 2026, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the Tribunal’s Case Co-ordinator on or before April 17, 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 June 19, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness statements, including expert witness statements, and/or brief outlines (if any), to the other parties and to the Tribunal’s Case Co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before June 19, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties 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.

15. On or before August 5, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before August 7, 2026, 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.

17. On or before July 17, 2026, Parties may provide to all other parties and the Tribunal’s Case Co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the Tribunal’s Case Co-ordinator on or before August 7, 2026.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before August 7, 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.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically to all parties and the Tribunal. If requested by the Tribunal, hard copies shall be delivered to the Tribunal. 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 Tribunal’s Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal's Video Hearing Guide, or as may be amended. Section 22 applies regardless if the hearing event is in person or electronic.

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.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

1. Date	2. Hearing Event
   March 6, 2026	Exchange of List of Witnesses
   April 2, 2026	Expert Witness Meeting
   April 17, 2026	Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues
   June 19, 2026	Exchange of Witness Statements
   June 19, 2026	Delivery of Participant Statements
   August 5, 2026	Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required
   August 7, 2026	Exchange of Visual Evidence
   July 17, 2026	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
   August 7, 2026	Filing of Joint Document Book
   August 7, 2026	Filing of Hearing Plan
   September 9, 2026	Hearing Commences

ATTACHMENT 2

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. TOWN OF LASALLE WeirFoulds LLP Suite 10, 1525 Cornwall Road Oakville, ON L6J 0B2 Denise Baker 416-947-5090 dbaker@weirfoulds.com Kelin Algayer 647-715-7126 kalgayer@weirfoulds.com

2. 1413506 ONTARIO LTD. (ANTHONY ABRAHAM) Barouldi Law Professional Corporation 902 Thistleridge Crescent London, ON N6K 0B8 Analee J.M. Baroudi 519-200-3776 analee@baroudilaw.ca

3. 2442760 ONTARIO LTD. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Suite 3400, 22 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Lee English 416-637-6169 lenglish@blg.com

4. 2601370 ONTARIO INC., MIRA DEVELOPMENTS INC., LAURIER HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT INC. AND 10447005 CANADA LIMITED Gowling WLG LLP Suite 600, 345 King Street West Kitchener, ON N2G 0C5 Jonathan Minnes 519-569-4561 jonathan.minnes@gowlingwlg.com Kevin Dias 519-575-7527 kevin.dias@gowlingwlg.com

5. JOHN DEMARCO Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP Suite 3200, Bay Adelaide Centre – North Tower 40 Temperance St. Toronto, ON M5H 0B4 Canada Jennifer Evola 416-860-6753 jevola@cassels.com

6. L.A. LAND CORPORATION Suite 340, 13300 Tecumseh Road East, Windsor, ON N8N 4R8 Jeffrey Hewitt 519-995-6325 jeff@hewittlaw.ca

7. CROSSINGVIEW DEVELOPMENT INC. (Added Party) Barouldi Law Professional Corporation 902 Thistleridge Crescent London, ON N6K 0B8 Analee J.M. Baroudi 519-200-3776 analee@baroudilaw.ca

8. PROPOWER MFG. INC. (Added Party) Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Suite 3400, 22 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Lee English 416-637-6169 lenglish@blg.com

9. SORGE ENTERPRISES INC. (Added Party) Edwin C. Hooker Professional Corporation North Suite 100, 72 Talbot Street Essex, ON N8M 1A2 Edwin C. Hooker 519-961-7155 ehooker@edwinlaw.com

PARTICIPANTS

1. JONATHAN CHOQUETTE Wildlife Preservation Canada 226-961-5193 jchoquette@wildlifepreservation.ca

2. RACHAEL MILLS 519-995-1887 rachaelmills09@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

1413506 Ontario Limited

3. Is the proposed Environmental Protection Designation on the Subject Lands consistent with policies 4.1.1, 4.1.5, 4.1.7 and Section 8 as it related to the definition of Natural Features and Areas and Habitat of Endangered Species and Threatened Species, of the Provincial Planning Statement?

4. Have the Subject Lands been the subject of a site-specific environmental assessment by the Municipality, conducted in accordance with Provincial Guidance or municipal approaches which meet or exceed the same objective, to justify the proposed Environmental Protection Designation?

5. Does the proposed Environmental Protection Designation conform with the County of Essex Official Plan (2024), particular, Policy 7.A.1, Policy 7.1.2.1 and Schedule B.

6. Does the proposed Environmental Protection Designation conform to section 5.3.2.1 of the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan?

7. Does the proposed Environmental Protection Designation on the Subject Lands conform to the intent of this designation?

8. Is the proposed realignment of Bouffard Road appropriate given the proposed Environmental Protection Designation on the Subject Property, particularly when the realignment avoids an existing Road Allowance as part of a registered plan?

9. Does the realignment of Bouffard Road as illustrated on Schedule F3 conform with Policy 5.3.2.1 (f) of the Secondary Plan? Will the realignment limit or eliminate access to the Subject Lands?

2601370 Ontario Inc., Mira Developments Inc., Laurier Heights Developments Inc. and 10447005 Canada Limited

1. Does OPA 2 have regard to matters of provincial interest in accordance with section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections: 2 (h), (k), (l), (n), and (p)?

2. Does OPA 2 represent good planning in the public interest?

3. Is OPA 2 consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024, including but not limited to policies: 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 2.2.1 b) and c), 2.3.1.2, 3.6.1?

4. Does OPA 2 conform to the County of Essex’s Official Plan, including but not limited to Sections: 4.0, 4.A?

5. Does OPA 2 conform to the Town of LaSalle’s Official Plan, including but not limited to Sections: 2.2, 4.11, 5.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 7.5, 7.13?

6. Is the Cahil drain identified in OPA 2 consistent with the Class EA preferred design? Should the drain identification be adjusted as a result of engineer considerations, detailed design and any addendums to the EA?

7. Is it appropriate to identify the Cahil drain and associated land use designations for properties outside of the Secondary Plan study area and should any modifications to policies or mapping be made in relation to the Cahil drain?

8. Are the land use designations for the Subject Properties in OPA 2, as Shown on Map 6 / Schedule F1, appropriate and consistent with prevailing planning policies?

9. Are the proposed land use designations for the Subject Properties too directive/restrictive with respect to development flexibility?

10. Should the proposed Mixed Use Corridor designation outlined in Section 5.3.3.1 of the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan, including any lot size or other building design requirements, for the Subject Properties fronting on Laurier Parkway be amended to reflect current site conditions/dimensions of the relevant Subject Properties?

11. Alternatively, should a Residential designation be considered for the Subject Properties fronting on Laurier Parkway?

12. Are the proposed land use designations and setbacks from the Cahil drain, including the policies for environmental protection lands outlined in Section 5.3.2.1 of the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan, for the Subject Properties premature based on available technical reports and fieldwork? And, to the extent that these areas do not meet natural heritage criteria, is it appropriate to designate them as environmental protection simply by being in proximity to the Cahil drain?

13. Are the identification of stormwater management facilities, parkland or school sites on or in proximity to the Subject Properties appropriate as per Section 5.3.4 of the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan? Should they be relocated, removed, or considered as part of site-specific development proposals?

14. Are the planning features identified for the Subject Properties under OPA 2 based on satisfactory planning studies, and do any deficiencies in the planning studies require changes to OPA 2 policies?

15. Are the natural heritage features identified on the Subject Properties in OPA 2, as shown on Schedule F2, appropriate or consistent with prevailing planning policies including but not limited to Section 5.3.2 of the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan?

16. Are the stormwater management facilities identified on the Subject Properties in OPA 2, as shown on Appendix 2, appropriate and consistent with prevailing planning policies including but not limited to Section 5.3.4.3 and 5.3.5.3 of the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan?

John DeMarco

1. Does the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (a), (c), (h), (o), (p), (q), and (s)?

2. Is the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including policies 2.9, 3.6, 3.9, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2?

3. Does the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan conform to the County of Essex Official Plan, 2014, including policies 1.3.3, 1.5, 2.2, 2.5, 3.2, 3.4, Schedules “B1” - “B3”, Schedule “C2” and Schedule “C5”?

4. Does the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan conform to the County of Essex Official Plan, (approved August 15, 2025), including policies: 1.A.1, 1.A.2, 2.0, 6.0, 7.0, 7.A, 7.B, 8.A, 10.0, 10.C, 12.A.3, Schedule “A1”, Schedule “B”, Schedule “C2”, and Schedule “C6”?

5. Does the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan conform to and/or maintain the intent and purpose of the Town of LaSalle Official Plan, including policies: 2.2(i), 3.1(d), 3.1(f), 3.2.2(b)(ii), 3.2.2(p) –(r), 4.11, 6.4, and 7.13.?

6. Does the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan have appropriate regard for the Essex Region Natural Heritage System Strategy?

7. Has the Town of LaSalle undertaken and properly implemented the recommendations of an Environmental Impact Study prior to the approval of the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan?

8. Is the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan premature until such time as an Environmental Impact Study is completed?

9. Does the Howard Bouffard Secondary Plan represent good planning and is approval in the public interest?

L.A. Land Corporation

1. Does the proposed Secondary Plan have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular 2(a)- the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions?

2. Is the proposed Secondary Plan consistent with the policies in the Provincial Planning Statement and in particular chapter 1, section 4.1 and section 6.1.7, and section 8 as it relates to the definition of Natural Features and Areas and Habitat of Endangered Species and Threatened Species?

3. Does the proposed Secondary Plan conform with the County of Essex Official Plan that was in force at the time the Secondary Plan was approved and in particular policy 3.2.4 (g) and Schedule B-3?

4. Does the proposed Secondary Plan have appropriate regard for the County of Essex Official Plan, 2024 approved following the approval of the Secondary Plan, and in particular policy 7.0, specifically but not limited to policy 7.A and Schedule “B”?

5. Does the proposed Secondary Plan conform to the policies in the Town’s Official Plan and in particular policy 4.11?

6. Does the proposed Secondary Plan conflict with the Natural Environment regulations in the Town’s Zoning By-law?

7. Is the Environmental Protection designation on the lands owned by L.A. Land Corporation and other lands similarly designated appropriate?

8. Have the various lands, including the lands of L.A. Land Corporation, been the subject of a site-specific environmental assessment by the Municipality, conducted in accordance with Provincial Guidance or municipal approaches which meet or exceed the same objective, to justify the proposed Environmental Protection designation?

9. Does the proposed Environmental Protections designation, in general and as it specifically relates to the Subject Lands: (a) fail to address the method, need and time of any public acquisition while purporting to establish a scheme to restrict and de-value the affected lands, contrary to provincial interest, public policy and good planning; and, (b) adequately consider the needs of the development community or the impacts on property rights such that the harm to property owners is outweighed by a demonstrated greater benefit to the public at large?

10. Has the town exceeded its jurisdiction by including policies in the Secondary Plan respecting the proposed buffering around drains? Will the proposed buffers impact drain maintenance as required by the Drainage Act?

11. Is policy 5.3.2.1(i) appropriate?

2442760 Ontario Limited

1. Does OPA 2 have regard to matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including s. 2(h), (I), (o) and (p)?

2. Is OPA 2 consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including policies 2.8.1.1, 2.8.1.3, 2.8.2.1, 2.8.2.3, 2.8.2.4, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 6.2.1(b)?

3. Does OPA 2 conform with the County of Essex Official Plan, 2014 including policies 1.5(i), 2.12, 3.2.4.1(c) and (i), 3.2.6(g)(vii)and 4.4?

4. Does OPA 2 conform with the County of Essex Official Plan, as approved by the Minister on August 15, 2025, including policies 4.A.2.2.(d), 4.A.2.4, 4.A.2.10, 4.C.(b), 4.C.(c), 4.C(d), 4.C.(f), 4.C.1.2, 4.C.2.1(d), 4.C.2.2.(b), 4.C.2.3, 4.C.4.1, 4.C.4.2(a), (b), (h), (i), 4.6.4.3, 11.I.1, 11.I.2 and 12.F.1?

5. Does OPA 2 have appropriate regard for the Town of LaSalle Official Plan, including policies 3.1.(c), 3.2.1(a), 3.2.2(a), 3.2.2(b)(i), 4.1(a), 4.8 and 7.3(a)?

6. Should the lands to which OPA 2 applies be expanded to include all lands within the 300 metre area of influence of the major facility located at 5000 Howard Business Parkway, LaSalle, including the lands municipally known as and legally described as 1620 and 1780 Concession Road 6, LaSalle? [Crossingview Development Inc. will be sheltering under this issue]

7. Should SPA 2 be applied to all lands within 300 metres of the lands municipally known as 5000 Howard Business Parkway, LaSalle?

8. Should any lands within 300 metres if the lands municipally known as 5000 Howard Business Parkway, LaSalle be designated “Mixed Use Corridor Designation”? If not, what is the appropriate designation?

9. Is the land use designation “Business Park” an “area of employment” as defined by the Planning Act and an “employment area” as defined by the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024? If not, what revisions are required to OPA 2 to ensure lands designated “Business Park” are an “area of employment” and “employment area”? [Crossingview Development Inc. will be sheltering under this issue]

10. Should OPA 2 be revised to include a site-specific policy area for the lands municipally known as 5000 Howard Business Parkway, LaSalle to recognize the use of those lands for manufacturing / industrial purposes?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. The Corporation of the Town of LaSalle

2. L.A. Land Corporation

3. 2601370 Ontario Inc., Mira Developments Inc., Laurier Heights Developments Inc. and 10447005 Canada Limited

4. 1413506 Ontario Limited

5. John DeMarco

6. Sorge Enterprises Inc. (Added Party)

7. 2442760 Ontario Limited

8. Propower MFG. Inc. (Added Party)

9. Crossingview Development Inc. (Added Party)

10. Reply by the Corporation of the Town of LaSalle