Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 15, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000243

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

Appellant: 11034936 Canada Inc. ("Brigil") Appellant: Zena Investment Corporation & Myers Youville Development Corp. Party: SDLP 1887 Orleans Limited Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48 Description: To amend Official Plan for the City of Ottawa to add the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan Reference Number: D01-01-22-0008 Municipality: City of Ottawa OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000243 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000243 OLT Case Name: 154775 Canada Inc., et al. v. Ottawa (City)

Heard: December 8, 2025 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Ottawa	Tim Marc
11034936 Canada Inc. ("Brigil")	Jacob Polowin
Zena Investment Corporation/ Meyers Youville Development Group	Gregory Meeds
Sobeys/SDLP 1887 Orleans Limited	Michelle Cicchino

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH ON DECEMBER 8, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was an additional Case Management Conference ("CMC") pertaining to the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan in the City of Ottawa ("City"). The October 15, 2025, CMC disposition stated the remaining Appellants and Non-Appellant party (as listed above) and that settlement discussions are nearing completion.

2At the time of the CMC, settlement discussions were still ongoing, and the City presented the draft Procedural Order ("PO") and Issue List ("IL"), requesting that a seven-day merit hearing be scheduled. The City requested that the hearing be scheduled in July of 2026 to provide ample time to continue settlement discussions in hope to finalize them in advance of the deadlines imposed in the PO.

3Zena Investment Corporation/ Meyers Youville Development Group ("Zena") communicated to the Tribunal that they would prefer a hearing date in March. Brigil stated that they are working towards a settlement and has no interest in setting hearing dates.

4As well, Counsel for Loblaw Companies Limited, who settled their appeal in respect to this matter in August of 2024, continues to attend the CMC proceedings. They informed the Tribunal that they have not had an opportunity to review the draft IL of the remaining appellants. Once reviewed, they will determine if any of the issues of the remaining Appellants affect their client. They advised that they may request Party Status.

PROCEEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

5The Tribunal directed the City to update the PO in accordance with the hearing dates as scheduled below and to include the summary table of dates. Shortly after the conclusion of the CMC, the City produced the updated PO, inclusive of the IL on consent of the Parties for review and approval by the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds the PO and IL are acceptable and attaches the PO, including the IL, to this Order. Additionally, counsel for Loblaw Companies Limited are directed to advise the Tribunal and the Parties of any intention to seek Party Status by Friday, December 19, 2025.

MERIT HEARING SCHEDULED

6The Tribunal advised that seven (7) days are available for the hearing of the merits in June of 2026. The Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video commencing on Monday, June 22, 2026, at 10 a.m., concluding on Tuesday, June 30, 2026.

7Furthermore, if any settlement discussions come to fruition by coming to a full uncontested settlement, on consent, the Parties are to advise the Tribunal and request the scheduling of a written hearing to consider any applicable settlement proposal(s).

8Parties 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://meet.goto.com/680885805 Access code: 680-885-805

9Parties 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

10Persons 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: (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 680-885-805.

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 that a hearing of the merits be scheduled for seven (7) days commencing on Monday, June 22, 2026, at 10 a.m. by video hearing as set out above.

13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order included as Schedule 1 to this Order shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the hearing of the merits for this matter.

"Kurtis Smith"

KURTIS SMITH 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

ISSUE DATE: December 15, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000243

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

Appellant: 11034936 Canada Inc. ("Brigil") Appellant: Zena Investment Corporation & Myers Youville Development Corp. Party: SDLP 1889 Orleans Limited Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 2023-48 Description: To amend Official Plan for the City of Ottawa to add the Orleans Corridor Secondary Plan Reference Number: D01-01-22-0008 Municipality: City of Ottawa OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000243 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000243 OLT Case Name: 154775 Canada Inc., et al. 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 June 22, 2026 at 10 a.m. https://meet.goto.com/680885805

3. The parties' initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 7 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. 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 23, 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 May 28, 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 1, 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 8, 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 1, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before June 15, 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. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence May 22, 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 June 8, 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 on or before June 15, 2026 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 June 8, 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 to Sample 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.

SUMMARY OF DATES

Event	Time in Advance of hearing	Date
Witness List	60 days	April 23, 2026
Witness Statement	45 days	May 8, 2026
Response to Witness Statement	31 days	May 22, 2026
Experts Meeting	25 days	May 28, 2026
Experts Agreed Statement of Facts	21 days	June 1, 2026
Confirm number of days required for hearing	21 days	June 1, 2026
Hearing Plan	14 days	June 8, 2026
Joint Document Book to be provided	14 days	June 8, 2026
Visual Evidence to be provided	7 days	June 15, 2026
Notice that witness who has provided written evidence will not be appearing	7 days	June 15, 2026

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES

1. 11034936 Canada Inc (Brigil)
2. Zena Investment Corporation/Meyers Youville Development Group
3. Sobeys/SDLP 1889 Orleans Limited
4. City of Ottawa

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF ISSUES

1. General Issues a. Does the proposed Secondary Plan conform to the City of Ottawa's Official Plan? b. Are policies 6.5(13), 28 and 30 of the proposed Secondary Plan overly prescriptive and ultra vires the City's authority under s. 16 of the Planning Act?

2. Issues Relating to Parkland/MUPS a. Are the proposed parkland dedication requirements of the proposed OPA, as they relate to the subject properties, within the authority of the City to imposed pursuant to the Planning Act? b. Does the City have the authority to require dedication of lands for Multi-Use Pathways, above and beyond those lands which can be required under the 10% cap set out in the Planning Act? c. Are the policies requiring a Land-Owners Agreement with respect to parkland over-dedication reasonable, fair, appropriate, within the City's authority to impose, and good land use planning? d. For any works, dedications or improvements for which a Land-Owners Agreement approach is determined to be appropriate and authorized, should the identification of participating land-owners on Schedule C be amended to include all of the Youville District lands (including the City of Ottawa lands), as "Lands Subject to Land Owner Agreements"? e. Does the location of the proposed park on Schedule C, mid-way between Youville Drive and St. Joseph Boulevard, represent good land use planning, consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement? f. Is it reasonable, fair, or good land use planning to require the MUP be fully designed, funded and constructed by the proponent of the master planned development at 8600 Jeanne d'Arc Boulevard, prior to occupancy of the first phase regardless that that parts of the MUP traverse and will benefit neighbouring properties?

3. Policies Relating to New Street a. Does the City have the authority to require the Appellant to dedicate a 10-metre corridor for the construction of a new North-South Street, and to pay for the construction of said street? b. It is good land use planning to locate a park in a location which will require the construction of a major new street, which is otherwise not required for development of the lands? c. Conversely, is it reasonable, fair, or good land use planning to require a land owner to pay for the construction of a new road which is not required for the development of the lands, but is only required in order to access an otherwise land-locked park? d. Are the the policies relating to the funding and distribution of financial obligation for the construction of the new street appropriate, fair, and good land use planning? e. Are the policies requiring this new street consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. City of Ottawa (Factual Overview)
2. 11034936 Canada Inc.
3. Zena Investment Corporation/Meyers Youville Development Group
4. Sobeys/SDLP 1889 Orleans Limited
5. City of Ottawa
6. 11034936 Canada Inc. (Reply)
7. Zena Investment Corporation/Meyers Youville Development Group (Reply)
8. Sobeys/SDLP 1889 Orleans Limited (Reply)