Beehler v. Ottawa (City), 2025 CanLII 127693

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 04, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000389

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Robert, John and Rick Beehler

Appellant: Zied Hamida

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description: To redesignate the area known as the South Bear Brook Wetland

Reference Number: D01-01-25-0003

Property Address: South Bear Brook Wetland

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000389

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000389

OLT Case Name: Beehler v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Robert, John and Rick Beehler

Appellant: Zied Hamida

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: To redesignate the area known as the South Bear Brook Wetland

Reference Number: D02-02-25-0002

Property Address: South Bear Brook Wetland

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000390

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000389

OLT Case Name: Beehler v. Ottawa (City)

Heard: November 21, 2025, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Robert, John, and Rick Beehler (“Appellants”)

John Beehler*

City of Ottawa (“City”)

Timothy Marc

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON November 21, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The City initiated an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to designate a new provincially significant wetland, the South Bear Brook Wetland, on April 16, 2025.

2The Appellants filed appeals pursuant to sections 17(24) and 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), with respect to their property at 5425 Piperville Road, in the City (“Subject Property”). They are no longer represented by legal counsel, Mr. Roberto Aburto, based on the Cessation of Authorization form filed with the Tribunal on November 17, 2025.

3At the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”), held on October 20, 2025, the Tribunal severed the appeals brought by the Appellants from the appeals filed by Zied Hamida concerning his property located at 5305 Piperville Road.

4On November 21, 2025, the Tribunal held its second CMC with respect to the Appellants’ appeals. The purpose of the second CMC was to consider Motions filed in writing and to consider a draft Procedural Order. At the first CMC, the City had indicated that it intended to bring a motion to require a site visit by the respective expert witnesses. The Tribunal notes that, after the first CMC, the Appellants consented that the firm of Parsons be allowed to revisit the Subject Property. The City undertook to provide the Appellants the report from Parsons soon after the City receives it on or about December 5, 2025.

5Given that no Motions were filed, the sole purpose of this second CMC was to consider the matter of the Procedural Order.

NEXT STEPS

6The City filed a draft Procedural Order and proposed a three-day hearing. The Appellants did not consent to the draft Procedural Order. They are of the view that the Subject Property should not form part of the designated wetlands based on studies that were conducted. As retired landowners, they seek to end this “unnecessary stress”. The Tribunal explained that the purpose of a CMC is to consider solely procedural matters. The merit of their appeal will be considered at a future hearing which will consider relevant land use planning evidence under the Act, including scientific evidence.

7Given that the Appellants brought these appeals and that there appears to be no prospect of a settlement, there is no way to resolve this matter without a merit hearing. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that a four-day merit hearing be scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, July 20, 2026 at 10 a.m. The City undertook to provide an agreed upon final draft Procedural Order by Friday, November 28, 2025, which was subsequently filed with the Tribunal

8Individuals 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/344779885

Access code: 344-779-885

9Individuals 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.

10Individuals who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 344-779-885.

11Individuals 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

12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:

a. The directions in this Decision; and

b. The Procedural Order, attached as Attachment A to this Order, is approved.

“Jean-Pierre Blais”

JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS

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 A

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000389

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Robert, John and Rick Beehler

Appellant: Zied Hamida

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Description: To redesignate the area known as the South Bear Brook Wetland

Reference Number: D01-01-25-0003

Property Address: South Bear Brook Wetland

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000389

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000389

OLT Case Name: Beehler v. Ottawa (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Robert, John and Rick Beehler

Appellant: Zied Hamida

Subject: Zoning By-law

Description: To redesignate the area known as the South Bear Brook Wetland

Reference Number: D02-02-25-0002

Property Address: South Bear Brook Wetland

Municipality/UT: Ottawa/Ottawa

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000390

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000389

OLT Case Name: Beehler v. Ottawa (City)

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 July 20, 2026 at 10 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 4 days. 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.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the attachment to the procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. 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.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 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 – ideally before the case management conference. 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 April 21, 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 on or before June 22, 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 OLT case co-ordinator on or before June 29, 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 May 21, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. N/A (no participants).

15. On or before June 29, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before July 13, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to 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. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence June 19, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before July 6, 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 July 6, 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 during the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. 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 the Rule 7.

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.

Attachment to Procedural Order

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES

1. Robert, John and Rick Beehler
2. City of Ottawa

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF ISSUES

1. Is the OWES evaluation conducted by the City of Ottawa on November 4, 2025 relevant to OPA 42 and zoning by-law 2025-154?
2. What are the boundaries of the Significant Wetland on 5425 Piperville Road?
3. Are OPA 42 and zoning by-law 2025-154 consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement and have regard for matters of provincial interest as they apply to 5425 Piperville Road?
4. If OPA 42 is approved, will zoning by-law 2025-154 conform to the Official Plan as it applies to 5425 Piperville Road?
5. Do OPA 42 and zoning by-law 2025-154 meet the test for good planning?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. City of Ottawa (Factual Overview)
2. Robert, John and Rick Beehler
3. City of Ottawa
4. Robert, John and Rick Beehler (Reply)