Hensels v. Elgin (County), 2025 CanLII 127707

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 04, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000118

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

Appellant: Gerry Hensels

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

Description: Alter "Natural Heritage" and "Natural Hazard" designation in order to create two severed lots and one retained lot

Reference Number: OPA 01/24

Property Address: 349 George Street (Plan 117, Part of Lot 5-7N George St. W, William Street, RP, 11R10681, Part 2)

Municipality/UT: Central Elgin/Elgin

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000118

OLT Case Name: Hensels v. Elgin (County)

Heard: October 17, 2025 by Telephone Conference

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Gerry Hensels Arkadi Bouchelev

Municipality of Central Elgin Analee Baroudi

County of Elgin Nicholas Loeb

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON october 17, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”), which took place by way of a Telephone Conference Call (“Third CMC”), before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal under section 22(7) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Gerry Hensels (“Applicant”) resulting from the denial by the Council of the Municipality of Central Elgin (“Municipality”) of an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), relating to lands municipally known as 349 George Street in the Municipality (“Subject Property”).

2The purpose of the OPA is to alter the "Natural Heritage" and "Natural Hazard" designation of the Subject Property to a “Residential” designation. The OPA was originally sought to facilitate a future consent application, as the two proposed severed lots would be situated on the eastern portion of the Subject Property, which is currently designated “Natural Heritage” and “Natural Hazard” under the Municipality’s Official Plan (“Municipality’s OP”). However, the Applicant has since decided to proceed with the OPA alone, without seeking the severance at this time.

3The first CMC took place on July 10, 2025 (“First CMC”), wherein the Tribunal confirmed that adequate Notice had been served and no further Notice was required. Additionally, the County of Elgin (“County”) was granted Party Status, and the following were granted Participant Status: Kettle Creek Conservation Authority; and Lorraine Reid. Lastly, a 10-day Merit Hearing was scheduled to commence on Monday, February 9, 2026, at 10 a.m. to and including Monday, February 23, 2026, with the Tribunal not sitting on Monday, February 16, 2026 (Family Day).

4The second CMC took place on August 19, 2025 (“Second CMC”), wherein the Tribunal identified the scope of the Hearing and directed that the issues on the Issues List (“IL”) must relate to the scope of the Hearing. Specifically, the Tribunal found the scope of the proceeding to be whether the current “Natural Heritage” and “Natural Hazard” boundary of the lands at issue should be moved and be replaced by a “Residential” designation. The Parties were further directed to provide the final IL by September 9, 2025. However, the Parties encountered further disagreements. Thus, this Third CMC took place to allow the Tribunal to provide directions on the issues to be on the IL.

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL

5The Parties disagreed on the following, and asked that the Tribunal make a decision on these:

a. A proposed new deadline in the Procedural Order (“PO”);

b. Issue 6, which concerns the County’s New Official Plan (“County’s New OP”);

c. Issue 8, which concerns a policy of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”); and

d. Issue 9, which concerns making a decision on the OPA without a development proposal.

Procedural Order Deadline

6The Municipality and the County wished to include this deadline in the PO:

November 1, 2025: [Applicant] to provide:

1. Draft instruments for Approval, including maps

2. Any updated studies or reports that were not before Council at the time of its decision

7The Applicant disputed the inclusion of this deadline.

8The Municipality and County argued that they cannot meaningfully prepare their witness statements or respond to the appeal without receiving updated technical studies, if any, and a draft OPA in advance of the deadline for the witness statements. They emphasized that all existing studies were prepared for a now-abandoned severance proposal and may be materially revised for the standalone OPA. Receiving new studies for the first time with witness statements would leave their experts unable to properly review or respond, make the initial witness statements moot (since they would be based on outdated studies), risk inefficiency and wasted costs, and potentially require the Council of the Municipality to review the new materials again under section 17(44.4) of the Act. They submitted that adding this new PO deadline would allow for fairness, especially when preparing witness statements. Moreover, receiving the draft OPA is vital, as it would provide an understanding of any proposed shifts to “Natural Heritage” / “Natural Hazard” boundaries in advance of witness statements being prepared. If the OPA and new studies are provided for the first time along with the witness statements, the Municipality and the County may have to seek an adjournment. Thus, without this new deadline, the current Hearing dates would be at risk.

9The Applicant argued that an early deadline is impractical and unfair because technical studies cannot be finalized until the IL is finalized, which can only happen after this Third CMC on October 17, 2025, when the Tribunal settles the disputes on certain issues. A November 1, 2025 deadline would give the Applicant less than two weeks to produce these studies. Moreover, the Municipality will also produce new studies in their witness statements, but they are not subject to the same requirement and deadline. This is unfair to the Applicant, and all Parties should be subject to the same limits. The production deadline should remain December 19, 2025, when witness statements are to be produced. This would cause no problems as all Parties can address new material through Reply evidence. The Applicant also opposed any adjournments, stating that none would be necessary. The studies previously provided already identify the relevant boundaries. Only language “fine-tuning” was now required to remove references to the severance application. The location of the proposed boundary is based on the geo-technical engineer’s findings and has nothing to do with any severance application. This was previously disclosed and remains the same.

10The Municipality and the County maintained that early delivery is required for a fair, efficient, and cost-effective hearing and asked the Tribunal to exercise its authority under section 19.1(l) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to impose such a deadline.

11The Tribunal asked whether the Applicant intended to provide new and updated technical studies. The Applicant confirmed that new studies would be provided, but reiterated that they would be a simple “fine-tuning” of the language as required to remove reference to the severance application.

12Upon hearing the submission of the Parties, the Tribunal determined that a draft OPA and the new technical studies were indeed required prior to the witness statement deadline. It was essential for the draft OPA to be provided to the Municipality and the County as early as possible to allow their witnesses to review same. Updated technical studies, however minimally revised, were also required. If not, the witness statements produced on December 19, 2025 may not be usable, and the Tribunal may only be able to meaningfully rely on the Reply witness statements. This would impede the Tribunal’s ability to make a decision on the issues in dispute. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the finalization of the IL was not relevant to the technical studies, as those studies referred to the bare-minimum facts that would be used by the experts. It was the witness statements that relied on the IL, which were different from the technical studies.

13The November 1, 2025 deadline, however, was fast approaching. Unfortunately, so is the February 9, 2026 date when the Hearing is scheduled to commence. The Tribunal directed that, since the Applicant wished to keep the February Hearing dates, the updated technical studies and draft instruments would have to be provided as soon as possible. In light of the other deadlines in the PO, the Tribunal would be able to move it to November 7, 2025 at the latest. This deadline was agreed to by all Parties, and the Tribunal Ordered that the Applicant is to provide a draft OPA and updated technical studies, if any, by November 7, 2025.

Issue 6: County’s New OP

14The Parties disagreed on the inclusion of the following issue:

County of Elgin New Official Plan

6. To what extent should the Tribunal have regard for the County of Elgin Official Plan (Approved September 4, 2025)? In particular, but not limited to, the following policy sections:

a. Policy Sections 6.0, 6.2, 6.3, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.11 (Settlement Areas)

b. Policy Sections 7.0, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15, and (The Natural System)

c. Policy Sections 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6, 10.9, 10.10, 10.12 and (Development Hazards)

15The Applicant wanted this issue removed, and the Municipality and the County insisted on its inclusion.

16The Applicant argued that the County’s New OP is irrelevant because the OPA application was filed on April 5, 2024, at which time the County’s New OP did not exist. Relying on the Clergy Principle, the Applicant asserted that only the policy regime in force at the time of application, which was the County’s 2013 OP, governs. Asking the Tribunal to consider a non-existent policy framework would be against the Clergy Principle and was legally improper.

17The Municipality and County, however, submitted that this issue is worded very carefully. It is not asking the Tribunal to perform a conformity exercise. Rather, this issue is only asking to what extent the Tribunal should have regard to the County’s New OP. This is a standard and routine inquiry whenever a new policy framework comes into force prior to a hearing. Even when the Clergy Principle applies to determine the primary policy regime, the Tribunal may still have regard to new planning documents to understand current policy direction and context. The County further noted that it had recently adopted the County’s New OP, and it is important for the Tribunal to determine what weight, if any, it should give to that updated policy framework as part of the broader planning analysis.

18The Tribunal agreed with the Municipality and County and found that Issue 6 is appropriate and should remain, specifically as currently worded. The Tribunal referred to the case of Masters v. Claremont Development Corporation, 2021 ONSC 3311, wherein the Divisional Court clarified that the Clergy Principle is not a legal principle. Rather, it is a procedural policy developed by the Tribunal’s predecessor, and its application is discretionary and entirely within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine as a finding of fact (as opposed to a finding of law). There are circumstances where the Tribunal may decide not to apply it, and as such, regard to the County’s New OP is entirely appropriate as it allows the Tribunal to decide how much weight to assign to it. The Tribunal found that the approach proposed by the Municipality and the County, which was to apply the “conformity” test to the original OP but the “have regard to” test to the County’s New OP, is appropriate, routine, and legally supported by the breadth of the Tribunal’s discretion. It would allow the Tribunal to make an informed decision in this case. The Tribunal concluded that Issue 6 will remain, as it properly invites the Tribunal to decide how much weight to give to the County’s New OP, and is in accordance with the finding of the Divisional Court.

Issue 8: A policy of the PPS

19The Parties disagreed on the underlined part of the following issue:

8. Has the proposed Official Plan amendment as it relates to the proposed residential designation demonstrate that there will be no negative impacts on the natural heritage feature or its ecological functions? Does the term “no negative impacts” mean “no net negative impact”?

[underline added by Tribunal]

20The Applicant wanted to include the underlined question in Issue 8, stating that its addition was not intended to create a new issue but simply to flag for the Tribunal that impact terminology may require interpretation. The Applicant maintained that witnesses would address this distinction in their evidence regardless, and it would not cause problems to indicate this question in the IL in order to alert the Hearing Adjudicator.

21The Municipality and the County opposed the addition of the underlined question. They submitted that “no negative impacts” is a defined term in the PPS (section 4.1(8)), and Issue 8 should use the exact PPS language. The Municipality emphasized that “no net negative impact” is a different concept, generally applied only where a specific development proposal is being evaluated. Since this is now an OPA-only appeal with no development proposal, “net negative impact” is not the applicable test. Any dispute about interpretation can be addressed through evidence at the Hearing, not by rewriting Issue 8. The County agreed, stating that the “net negative impact” standard relates to development applications, not policy-level OPA evaluations.

22The Tribunal agreed with the Municipality and County, finding that it is more helpful for the Tribunal to have the question reflect the language of the PPS, rather than introducing new issues. The Tribunal directed that the exact policy number of the PPS that this issue is quoting be included. Further, the Tribunal Ordered that the underlined part of Issue 8 be removed. The Parties can have their witnesses speak to that distinction (including the underlined question) in their witness statements if needed.

Issue 9: Making a decision on an OP without a development proposal

23The Parties disagreed on the inclusion of the following issue:

9. Does proceeding with the Official Plan amendment, in the absence of a development proposal, constitute good planning?

24The Applicant sought to remove Issue 9 entirely. The Applicant argued that the question is improper, because the Act does not require a development proposal to accompany an OPA. This issue effectively asks the Tribunal to override provincial legislation by suggesting that OPAs must be tied to specific proposals. This would set a precedent and no OPAs could be sought absent a development application. The Tribunal’s role is to assess this particular OPA, not to answer general or abstract planning questions. Thus, Issue 9 is an inappropriate general legal question that has no place in this matter. The Tribunal should consider whether this OPA is appropriate, not other OPA applications or a general question of law.

25The Municipality opposed removal of this issue, stating that Issue 9 is not a precedent-setting or legal question. The wording refers to “the” OPA, meaning this specific proposal, not OPAs generally. The County agreed with the Municipality and submitted that it is a live and relevant issue to ask whether proceeding with this particular OPA without a development proposal constitutes good planning. The Applicant abandoned the original development proposal and is now seeking a stand-alone residential designation. Thus, the Tribunal must understand all potential development outcomes, not just those associated with the former proposal. It must determine whether it is good planning to do this here considering all possible outcomes. In other words, the Applicant’s change of approach necessitates an IL that includes all conceivable developments that could occur if a new designation is placed on the relevant portion of the Subject Property, rather than those specific to the initial proposed development. As such, the Tribunal must decide whether granting this OPA is good planning in light of this broader context.

26The Applicant referred to Issue 10, which asks “Does this particular Official Plan amendment as it relates to the proposed residential designation represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?” The Applicant argued that if Issue 9 is asking about this particular OPA, then Issue 10 already captures whether the proposed residential designation represents good planning, and is repetitive of Issue 9. One of them should be removed. The County submitted that Issue 9 is not subsumed by Issue 10. Issue 9 concerns the planning rationale for advancing an OPA with no development details, whereas Issue 10 concerns whether the residential designation itself is good planning.

27The Tribunal was persuaded by the Municipality and the County. It is appropriate to determine whether this OPA is good planning in light of the myriad of outcomes that it may lead to. The Tribunal further found that it is not the same as Issue 10, since Issue 10 asks whether a residential designation is good planning, but Issue 9 asks whether it is good planning to consider changing the designation of this Subject Property absent a development proposal. Thus, the Tribunal found that Issue 9 should remain. However, the Tribunal directed that the wording must be clarified so that it expressly states, “this particular OPA”, thereby avoiding any implication of a broader legal question.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

28The Parties were directed to provide the updated PO and IL by October 24, 2025, and have done so. It is attached to this Decision as Schedule A and will govern the proceedings.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

29The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a Settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the Hearing, and should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services.

ORDER

30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERED as follows:

a. With respect to the production of technical studies and a draft Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), the Applicant, Gerry Hensels, is to provide same to the other Parties by November 7, 2025. The date of the production of the witness lists is moved to November 10, 2025 to accommodate this new date.

b. With respect to the County of Elgin’s new Official Plan, namely Issue 6, that issue is to remain on the Issues List as drafted.

c. With respect to the issue related to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), namely Issue 8, the question added by the Applicant is to be removed, and the Municipality is to include the specific provision of the PPS that the question relates to.

d. With respect to the issue related to this OPA in the absence of a development proposal, namely Issue 9, that issue is to remain, but is to be amended to indicate that the question is asking about “this particular OPA.”

31This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

SCHEDULE A – PROCEDURAL ORDER

ISSUE DATE: CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000118

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

Appellant: Gerry Hensels

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request to Alter Natural Heritage and “Natural Hazard” designation in order to create two severed lot and one retained lot

Property Address: 349 George Street (Plan 117, Part of Lot 5-7N George St.W, William Street RP 11R10681 Part 2

Municipality: Central Elgin/Elgin

Municipal File No.: OPA 01/24

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000118

OLT Case Name: Hensels v. Elgin (County)

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 take place February 9, 2026 - February 13, 2026 and will continue February 17, 2026 - February 20, 2026 and February 23, 2026 with all dates commencing at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 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 sample 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. On or before November 7, 2025, the Appellant shall provide a draft instrument for approval, including mapping, along with any updated technical studies or reports (not including planning evidence) that were not before Council at the time Council made its decision.

10. 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 November 10, 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 23 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before November 21, 2025 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 may provide an Updated Issues List with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before November 28, 2025.

12. 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 14 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.

13. 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.

14. On or before December 19, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements and Visual Evidence to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

15. On or before January 9, 2025, 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.

16. On or before January 9, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before January 9, 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 January 26, 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 January 29, 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 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.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1 – PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Gerry Hensels (Appellant and Applicant)

Municipality of Central Elgin

County of Elgin

Participants

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority

Lorraine Reid

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

Main Issues

1. Should the current Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard boundary of the lands at issue be moved and be replaced by a “Residential” designation in the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan?

Planning Act

2. Does the approval of the Official Plan Amendment application as it relates to the proposed residential uses have regard to matters of provincial interests in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including the matters set out in subsections 2(a), 2(o) and 2(p) therein?

Provincial Planning Statement 2024

3. Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment application as it relates to the proposed residential designation consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024? In particular, but not limited to the following policy sections:

   1. Policy Sections 2.3.1.2 and 2.3.1.3 (Settlement Areas)
   2. Policy Sections 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.3 and 4.1.5 and 4.1.8 (Natural Heritage)
   3. Policy Sections, 5.1.1 and 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.9. (Natural Hazards)

County of Elgin Official Plan

4. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment application as it relates to the proposed residential designation conform with the County of Elgin Official Plan (2013)? In particular but not limited to the following policy sections:

   1. Policy Section A4.2 (Development Near or Adjacent to Natural Hazard and Heritage Lands);
   2. Policy Sections D1.1, D1.2, D1.2.1, D1.2.2.1, D1.2.3, D1.2.6, D1.2.7, D.1.2.8, D1.2.8.1, D1.2.8.2 (Natural Heritage)
   3. Policy Sections D3.4, and D3.5 (Natural Hazards)
   4. Policy Section F3 (Local Official Plans)

County of Elgin New Official Plan

5. To what extent should the Tribunal have regard for the County of Elgin Official Plan (Approved September 4, 2025)? In particular, but not limited to, the following policy sections:

   1. Policy Sections 6.0, 6.2, 6.3, 6.7, 6.8 and 6.11 (Settlement Areas)
   2. Policy Sections 7.0, 7.2, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.8, 7.9, 7.14, 7.15, and (The Natural System)
   3. Policy Sections 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6, 10.9, 10.10, 10.12 and (Development Hazards)

Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan

6. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment application as it relates to the proposed residential designation conform with the Municipality of Central Elgin Official Plan? In particular but not limited to the following policy sections:

   1. Policy Section 2.1.1 (Urban Settlement Areas)
   2. Policy Section 2.6 (Natural Environment)
   3. Policy Sections 3.0, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.1.2, 3.1.1.4, 3.1.1.6, and 3.1.2 (Natural Heritage)
   4. Policy Sections 3.2, 3.2.1, and 3.2.2 (Natural Hazards)

General Issues

7. Has the proposed Official Plan amendment as it relates to the proposed residential designation identified the natural hazard?
8. Has the proposed Official Plan amendment as it relates to the proposed residential designation demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural heritage feature or its ecological functions (section 4.1(8) of the PPS 2024)?
9. Does proceeding with the Official Plan amendment, as it relates to the proposed residential designation, in the absence of a development proposal, constitute good planning?
10. Does this particular Official Plan amendment as it relates to the proposed residential designation represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Gerry Hensels

Municipality of Central Elgin

County of Elgin

Participants

Gerry Hensels in reply

ATTACHMENT 4 – CHART OF DEADLINES

Item

Deadline

Appellant to provide:

1. Draft Instruments for Approval, including maps
2. Any updated studies or reports that were not before Council at the time of its decision

November 7, 2025

Witness Lists

November 10, 2025

Experts Meetings

November 21, 2025

Updated Issues List and Agreed Statements of Fact

November 28, 2025

Witness Statements and Visual Evidence

December 19, 2025

Participant Statements

January 9, 2026

Advise Tribunal if all hearing dates are required

January 9, 2026

Replies to Witness Statements

January 9, 2026

Joint Document Book (if needed) and Hearing Plan

January 26, 2026

Hearing Plan

January 29, 2026