Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 24, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000477

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2863167 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit development of 5 townhouse dwellings with a total of 27 residential units with frontage provided on a proposed new street
Reference Number: Z/14544
Property Address: 4170 and 4190 Sixth Concession Road
Municipality/UT: Windsor/Essex
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000477
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000477
OLT Case Name: 2863167 Ontario Inc. v. Windsor (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2863167 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Refusal by Approval Authority
Description: To permit development of 5 townhouse dwellings with a total of 27 residential units with frontage provided on a proposed new street
Reference Number: Z/14781
Property Address: 4170 and 4190 Sixth Concession Road
Municipality/UT: Windsor/Essex
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000478
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000477

Heard: October 24, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
2863167 Ontario Inc.	Paula Lombardi
City of Windsor	Aaron Farough

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON OCTOBER 24, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for appeals filed by 2863167 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 34(11) and 51(39) of the Planning Act regarding the refusal of applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment and a Proposed Plan of Subdivision by the City of Windsor (“City”) for the property municipally known as 4170 and 4190 Sixth Concession Road (“Subject Property”).

2The proposed redevelopment would permit five townhouse dwellings, with a total of 27 residential units.

NOTICE

3The Tribunal received:

An Affidavit of Service for Notice delivered by registered mail, sworn by Tyra Ward, on September 30, 2025; and
An Affidavit of Service for Notice delivered by email, sworn by Andrea Edward, on September 30, 2025.

The Tribunal marked these as Exhibits 1a and 1b respectively.

4Upon review, and with no concerns raised by the Parties, the Tribunal determined that proper Notice of this CMC had been provided and that no further notice was required.

STATUS REQUESTS

5In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal received no Party status requests, and two Participant status requests from Osama Ragheb and Abdul Naboulsi.

6In Mr. Naboulsi’s request, he identified that he represented a group of local residents, the Spago-Zurich Participant group, and included a list of 15 other residents. When questioned by the Tribunal, Mr. Naboulsi stated that he had authorization to speak on behalf of these individuals. However, as this is a group of neighbours who live on Spago Street and Zurich Street, rather than a more formal or incorporated group, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the granting of Participant status to the group was appropriate.

7The Tribunal determined that it would not grant Participant status to the group. Instead, after a discussion, the Tribunal agreed to consider granting Participant status to Mr. Naboulsi, as an individual, and stated that the other residents could each submit individual Participant request forms. Any additional requests received could be considered by the Tribunal at a subsequent CMC.

8While Mr. Ragheb appeared on the list of the Spago-Zurich group, the Tribunal opted to consider his individual request for Participant status, as he had submitted a request form independently.

9When canvassed, neither Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant nor the City raised concerns regarding the substance of the individual requests; however, Ms. Lombardi questioned the timing of Mr. Naboulsi’s request, since it was received only four days prior to this CMC, rather than 10 days in advance, as indicated in the Notice. The Tribunal opted to exercise its discretion, and to consider Mr. Naboulsi’s request.

10Ms. Lombardi stated that the Applicant/Appellant would not object to additional Participant status requests and would prefer not to schedule a second CMC, as this would delay the process. Instead, she suggested that a date be set by which additional Participant requests be submitted, and that hearing dates be set.

11The Tribunal directed that additional Participant requests must be provided for consideration on or before Friday, November 7, 2025.

12Upon review and consideration, the Tribunal granted both Mr. Ragheb and Mr. Naboulsi’s requests for Participant status at the CMC.

13Following the CMC, the Tribunal received 15 additional Participant request forms by the required deadline.

14The concerns expressed by the Participants included, but were not limited to, excessive density, insufficient parking, increased traffic, decreased road safety for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians, insufficient infrastructure, incompatibility with the existing neighbourhood, decreased privacy, increased shadowing, and inappropriate access to and from the Subject Property.

15Upon review and consideration of the additional Participant status requests the Tribunal grants Participant status to the following individuals:

i. Carlos Henrique Simao Grant;
ii. Dan Chan;
iii. Diego Chemello;
iv. Duncan Lam;
v. Gord Martin;
vi. John Davis;
vii. Marla Sponarski;
viii. Raymond Drilleau;
ix. Rola Sbeiti;
x. Saed Abu Hamda;
xi. Slavisa Simovic;
xii. Suzanne De Froy;
xiii. Thomas Bradley;
xiv. Wen Teoh; and
xv. Zeljko Petrovic.

UPDATE

16The Parties advised that they had been working very well together and had a draft Procedural Order (“PO”), including Issues List, which they were working to fine-tune. As the issues have been agreed to in principle, they anticipated submitting the PO within two weeks. The Parties advised that each side expected to call a land use planner, traffic engineer, and civil engineer as expert witnesses. They requested that a five-day Hearing on the merits (“Merit Hearing”) be set in March or April of 2026.

17The Tribunal expressed hesitation about setting a hearing date without a preliminary Issues List. The Parties assured the Tribunal that the core issues had been identified and that only minor points were being refined. When questioned, the Parties reassured the Tribunal that five days would be sufficient for the Merit Hearing and confirmed that the Parties would advise the Tribunal well in advance should any of the days not be needed.

CONSOLIDATION OR HEARING TOGETHER

18While the matters were joined together administratively and were heard concurrently at the CMC for the sake of efficiency, no formal ruling had yet been made as to whether these appeals should be consolidated, heard together, or heard consecutively.

19Following submissions from the Parties, and upon consideration, the Tribunal found it appropriate to consolidate the matters in accordance with Rule 16.1 and 16.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as the matters both relate to the Subject Property and would rely on the same expert evidence.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

20While the Parties said that they would continue to communicate, they did not anticipate that all the issues could be resolved in this case. The Tribunal reminded the Parties that, if interested in Tribunal-led mediation, they could contact the Case Coordinator to request a mediation assessment.

NEXT STEPS

21Based on the Parties’ reassurances, the number of witnesses contemplated, and the commitment of the Parties to provide the PO within two weeks, the Tribunal granted the request to schedule a five-day Merit Hearing. The Parties were cautioned that, if the Tribunal did not receive the PO for review by Friday, November 7, 2025, those hearing dates would be removed from the Tribunal’s calendar. The Tribunal also highlighted that the Parties are expected to work together to ensure that the Merit Hearing will be completed within the timeframe provided, as no additional days will be added.

22The PO, including Issues List, was received on time and has been considered. The Tribunal approves the PO, included as Schedule 1, which shall govern the proceedings leading up to, and including, the Merit Hearing.

23A five-day Merit Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, April 27, 2026 at 10 a.m.

24Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/692665589

Access code: 692-665-589

25Parties 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

26Persons 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: 692-665-589.

27Individuals 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.

ORDER

28The Tribunal Orders that:

a. Participant status is granted to Osama Ragheb, Abdul Naboulsi, Carlos Henrique Simao Grant, Dan Chan, Diego Chemello, Duncan Lam, Gord Martin, John Davis, Marla Sponarski, Raymond Drilleau, Rola Sbeiti, Saed Abu Hamda, Slavisa Simovic, Suzanne De Froy, Thomas Bradley, Wen Teoh, and Zeljko Petrovic;

b. These matters have been consolidated;

c. A five-day Merit Hearing is scheduled, as detailed in paragraph [23]; and

d. The Procedural Order, included as Schedule 1 to this Order, is approved.

29There will be no further notice and the Member is not seized of the matters.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA
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.

SCHEDULE 1