Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 18, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000388, OLT-23-000679

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 10(3) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2

Applicant: Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc.

Subject: Proposed Amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan

Description: Application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to permit the use of the former convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph as a private secondary school with a maximum of 1,000 students and 85 staff with an accessory gymnasium addition attached to the existing building known as the Motherhouse

Reference Number.: PW 218 20

Property Address: 574 Northcliffe Avenue

Municipality/UT: (Former) Town of Dundas, City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000388

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000388

OLT Case Name: Plan Amendment PW 218 20 (Re)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2

Applicant/Appellant: Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc.

Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject: Refusal of a Development Permit Application

Description: To construct an addition for an accessory use (gymnasium) to an existing building (former convent) and expand a private septic system to support a secondary school use proposed under Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment PW 218 20

Reference Number.: W/P/2021-2022/487

Property Address: 574 Northcliffe Avenue

Municipality/UT: (Former) Town of Dundas, City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000679

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000679

OLT Case Name: Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc. v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)

Heard: November 25, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc.	Scott Snider Anna Toumanians
Pleasant View Protection Corporation	Nancy McKeil*
City of Hamilton	Patrick MacDonald

Memorandum of Oral DECISION DELIVERED BY A. Mason on november 25, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1On November 25, 2025, a third Case Management Conference ("CMC") was convened regarding two proceedings. The first proceeding is under s. 10(3) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act ("NEPDA") relating to proposed Amendment No. PW 218 20 to the Niagara Escarpment Plan ("Plan") to permit the use of a former convent as a private school with an accessory gymnasium additional attached, with respect to the property at 574 Northcliffe Avenue. The Plan amendment proceeding is labelled as OLT Case No. OLT-23-000388.

2The second proceeding arises from an appeal brought by Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc. ("Columbia") under s. 25(5.1) of the NEPDA regarding the Niagara Escarpment Commission's ("Commission") refusal of Columbia's application for a development permit to construct the proposed accessory gymnasium referred to above and expand an existing private septic system. It is labelled as OLT Case No. OLT-23-000679.

3The Tribunal acts in its role as the Hearing Office in these proceedings.

4The Commission is not participating in the proceedings.

5The City of Hamilton ("City") and Pleasant View Protection Corporation ("PVPC") were previously granted Party Status in both matters.

Phased Hearing Request

6In advance of the CMC, PVPC advised the Tribunal that it sought to have the matters heard separately in a phased hearing where the appeal under s. 10(3) of the NEPDA for the amendment to the Plan would proceed first, followed by a separate hearing of the appeal under s. 25(5.1) of the NEPDA concerning the development permit. PVPC's position is that the amendment to the plan should be adjudicated first to decide the question of whether the use is allowed, before consideration of the development permit which is contingent on the amendment being granted.

7Counsel for Columbia disagreed that a phased hearing would be necessary since the gymnasium requested under the development permit is the essential part of the amendment to the NEPDA. Further, Counsel submitted that PVPC's identified issues with the Development Permit application go to the broader policy tests so that piecing out their appeal of the permit from the appeal of the amendment would be inefficient. Counsel submitted that the expert witnesses would be the same for both appeals and that a phased hearing would duplicate time and effort.

8Counsel for the City expressed no position on PVPC's phased hearing request.

9The Tribunal considered the submissions of the Parties and concluded that a phased hearing is not necessary to grapple with the issues identified by PVPC for both appeals. The Tribunal noted that it is accustomed to hearing related appeals in the same hearing where one matter is contingent upon the outcome of the other. Where the expert witnesses and evidence are the same for both appeals and the issues are intricately linked, the Tribunal is reluctant to separate the matters into phases without good reason. As such, the Tribunal exercised its authority under Rule 22.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure and directed that both matters to be heard at a single Merit Hearing as the most fair, just and cost effective manner to adjudicate the issues.

Draft Procedural Order

10In advance of the CMC, the Parties provided a draft Procedural Order and Issues List ("PO"). The Tribunal raised a concern that PVPC's issues should be more focused and relate to specific policies. Counsel for Columbia advised they were content to proceed with the issues as presented in the interest of moving forward without further delay. The City had no position on the matter.

11Significant discussion took place with respect to the number of witnesses and disciplines the Parties expected to call to provide evidence. PVPC advised that it did not intend to call any witnesses but wished to retain the right to do so. Given the number of witnesses, the Tribunal determined that five hearing days were sufficient to fully adjudicate the matters.

12Subsequent to the CMC, the Parties engaged in additional discussion about order of appearance of the Parties, proposed disciplines and witnesses, order of evidence and reply. There was some refinement of PVPC's issues. Through this process, the Parties were able to come to agreement and the Tribunal is content with the form of PO.

13The PO attached hereto as Schedule 1 and shall govern the proceedings.

Merit Hearing

14The Tribunal set down the five days for a Merit Hearing commencing on Monday, June 1, 2026, to Friday, June 5, 2026, at 10 a.m.

15Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers 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

16Parties and/or 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

17Persons 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.

18Individuals 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.

Settlement Discussions

19The Parties were reminded to consider engaging in settlement discussions to narrow the issues in advance of the scheduled Merit Hearing.

Enforcement of Cost Award

20Counsel for Columbia requested that the Tribunal direct enforcement of costs awarded against PVPC with respect to a Judicial Review and a Leave to Appeal Motion, which were both dismissed by the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal respectively. Costs were awarded against PVPC which have not been forthcoming. The Tribunal advised Counsel that it does not have jurisdiction to enforce cost awards given in other forums and would not wade into the matter.

ORDER

21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a. The Appeals will be heard together in one Merit Hearing, not in a phased hearing.

b. The Procedural Order and Issues List at Schedule 1 shall govern the proceedings.

c. A five-day Merit Hearing will commence on Monday, June 1, 2026, to Friday, June 5, 2026.

"A. Mason"

A. MASON HEARING OFFICER

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

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000388 and OLT-23-000697

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 10(3) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2

Applicant: Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc.

Subject: Proposed Amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan

Description: Application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan to permit the use of the former convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph as a private secondary school with a maximum of 1,000 students and 85 staff with an accessory gymnasium addition attached to the existing building known as the Motherhouse

Reference Number.: PW 218 20

Property Address: 574 Northcliffe Avenue

Municipality/UT: (Former) Town of Dundas, City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000388

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000388

OLT Case Name: Plan Amendment PW 218 20 (Re)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2

Applicant/Appellant: Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc.

Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission

Subject: Refusal of a Development Permit Application

Description: To construct an addition for an accessory use (gymnasium) to an existing building (former convent) and expand a private septic system to support a secondary school use proposed under Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment PW 218 20

Reference Number.: W/P/2021-2022/487

Property Address: 574 Northcliffe Avenue

Municipality/UT: (Former) Town of Dundas, City of Hamilton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000679

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000679

OLT Case Name: Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc. v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)

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 1, 2026 at 10:00 am at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/692665589.

3. The parties' initial estimation for the length of the hearing is Five [5] 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. A summary of key dates is set out in Attachment 4.

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 https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Sample-PO-Aug-2022.html).

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 February 12, 2026 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.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before February 19, 2026 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts' meeting the parties may prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before February 26, 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 March 19, 2026, Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc. shall provide copies of its witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

14. On or before March 19, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 21 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 April 27, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before May 25, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. The City and the PVPC may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc.'s written evidence on or before April 17, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

18. On or before May 15, 2026 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below:

a. Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc. may provide a reply to the evidence filed by the City and PVPC and/or any written participant statements;

b. The City may provide a written response to the evidence filed by the PVPC; and

c. The PVPC may provide a written response to the evidence filed by the City.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before May 25, 2026.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before May 25, 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.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically (in searchable and printable PDF format, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties and the OLT case coordinator) and, if requested by the OLT case coordinator, in hard copy. 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.

24. 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.

25. A summary of procedural dates is set out in Attachment 4.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

PARTIES & PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc.

TMA Law 25 Main Street West, Suite 2010 Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1

Scott Snider Tel: 905-529-3476 Email: ssnider@tmalaw.ca

Anna Toumanians Tel: 905-529-3476 Email: atoumanians@tmalaw.ca

2. Pleasant View Protection Corp. (PVPC)

Nancy McKeil 37 Northcliffe Avenue Hamilton, ON. L9H 7B3 Email: nancymckeil@yahoo.ca

3. City of Hamilton

50 Main Street East, 5th Floor Hamilton, ON L8N 1E9

Patrick MacDonald Tel: 905-546-2424 ext. 4708 Email: patrick.macdonald@hamilton.ca

PARTICIPANTS

Name	Address	Email
Janet Linton	18 Zellens Road Hamilton. ON. L9H 7A9	janetlinton68@gmail.com
Alison Forde		alison.cforde@gmail.com
Trevor McKee		tmckee.cc@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

NOTE 1: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate, that it appropriately characterizes the applicable policy or establishes the appropriate test in evaluating the policy. The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party's intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet but shall not preclude any other party from calling evidence on the issue.

NOTE 2: The identification of a specific section of legislation or provision of policy/guideline in an issue does not preclude the parties from referring to other provisions from the same document or other document in addressing that issue.

PLEASANT VIEW PROTECTION CORP. ISSUES

PVPC Issues Regarding NEP Amendment

1. Would the proposed amendment permit 154 Northcliffe Ave. be used as a school (in addition to 574 Northcliffe Ave.)?
2. Is the application to amend the NEP permitted at this time in accordance with Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act 6.1 (2.2)?
3. Is the proposed NEP amendment consistent with the Purpose of the NEP?
4. Does the Pleasant View area constitute a unique ecological area, and if so, is the proposed use consistent with NEP's Objective 1: "To protect unique ecologic and historic areas;"
5. Is the proposed use consistent with the NEP's Objective 4: "To maintain and enhance the open landscape character of the Niagara Escarpment in so far as possible, by such means as compatible farming or forestry and by preserving the natural scenery?"
6. Is the proposed use consistent with the NEP's Objective 7: "To support municipalities within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area in their exercise of the planning functions conferred upon them by the Planning Act."?
7. Is the proposed use similar to an existing use or a more compatible use and has it been sufficiently demonstrated that the objectives of the Escarpment Rural Area designation of the NEP are met, as required by NEP 2.3.1?
8. Is the proposed development consistent with NEP 2.7?
9. Is the proposed NEP amendment justified in accordance with the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act?
10. Is the proposed NEP amendment consistent with Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS) Sections 2.1 6, 2.3.1.1, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.3 a), 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.3?
11. Is the school a permitted use in accordance with PPS Section 2.6.1?
12. Is the proposed NEP amendment consistent with PPS Sections 2.6 2, 2.6.3, 2.6.4, 2.8.1 d), 2.8.1.4, 2.9?
13. Regarding the PPS, does a private school constitute a public service facilities, and if so, is the proposed NEP amendment consistent with Section 3.1? If not, is the proposed NEP amendment consistent with PPS Sections 3.1.2 b), 3.1.3 and 3.1.5?
14. Is the proposed NEP amendment consistent with PPS Sections 3.2.2, 3.6.1 b) 3., 3.6.1 b) 4, 3.6.1 f), 3.6.6, 3.6.8, 4.1 1., 4.1. 2., 4.1.8, 4.2.2, 4.6 and 5.2 6 a)?
15. Is the proposal consistent with building upon rural character and conserving biodiversity and considering the ecological benefits provided by nature [PPS 2.5.1 a) and g)]?
16. Are the materials, reports and plans accompanying the proposal adequate:
    1. Is the Environmental Impact Study free from substantive errors and omissions, and does it meet City of Hamilton EIS Guidelines?
    2. Are the Transportation Impact Studies dated January 15, 2020, and February 9, 2021: Free from substantive errors and omissions; Meet City of Hamilton Transportation Assessment Guidelines; Meet MTO General Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies; and are the conclusions consistent with MTO requirements and recommendations?
    3. Does the submission adequately address infrastructure and servicing constraints and impacts?
    4. Are the reports within their useful life?
    5. Are the Planning Justification Report and Planning Justification Addendum Report free from substantive errors and omissions, and do they meet City of Hamilton Guidelines for Planning Justification Reports?

PVPC Issues Regarding Development Permit

1. Is the proposed new gymnasium consistent with the NEP's overarching objective 4. "To maintain and enhance the open landscape character of the Niagara Escarpment in so far as possible, by such means as compatible farming or forestry and by preserving the natural scenery;"
2. Does the gross floor area of the proposed gymnasium exceed 500 square metres, and if so, has the submission demonstrated compatibility of the larger size with the site and surrounding landscape in accordance with NEP 2.2.9?
3. Should the proposed use of a school be permitted, is the proposed gymnasium consistent with section 2.3.4 of the NEP?
4. Is the proposed gymnasium footprint within120 metres of a key hydrologic feature (the on-site headwater stream), and if so, is the development permitted in accordance with NEP 2.6 2?
5. Would the proposed Large Subsurface Sewage Disposal System (LSSDS) ensure hydrologic features and functions including the quality, quantity and character of groundwater and surface water, at the local and watershed level, are protected and where possible enhanced in accordance with NEP 2.6?
6. Would the proposed new gymnasium and expansion of the LSSDS protect natural heritage features and functions, in order to maintain the diversity and connectivity of the continuous natural environment in accordance with NEP 2.7?
7. Does the proposed development include infrastructure and if so, is it consistent with NEP 2.12?
8. Is the proposed LSSDS consistent with PPS 3.6?
9. Does the proposed LSSDS sewage design flow rate meet Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks' recommendations and is it consistent with PPS section 3.6.1 b) 3?

CITY OF HAMILTON ISSUES

City Issues Regarding NEP Amendment

Planning

1. Is consideration of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan required? If so:
   1. Does the proposal have regard to the policies of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan, including but not limited to policies: i. C 1.1.4 c) (Rural Land Use Policies within the Niagara Escarpment Plan Area) ii. D 4.1.3 (Rural Designation Permitted Uses)
   2. Does the proposal have regard to the policies 1.0 of Volume 3 Chapter A- Rural Special Policy Areas?
   3. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and is in the public interest?

Transportation Planning

1. Does the proposal have regard to the Rural Hamilton Official Plan Policy C.4.2.10 such that the development will not negatively affect the planned use of the adjacent transportation corridor?
2. Does the proposal have regard to providing proactive safety measures for all road system users as required by Rural Hamilton Official Plan Policy C.4.5.13?

Cultural Heritage

1. Does the proposal have regard to section B.3.4.1.3 of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan Policy which ensures that all new development, site alterations, building alterations, and additions are contextually appropriate and maintain the integrity of all on-site or adjacent cultural heritage resources.
2. Does the proposal have regard to encouraging the rehabilitation, renovation, and restoration of built heritage resources in order that they remain in active use as stated in policy section B.3.4.1.4.
3. Does the proposal have regard to the conservation and protection of cultural heritage resources in planning and development matters subject to the Planning Act either through appropriate planning and design measures or as conditions of development approvals as stated in policy section B.3.4.2.1(g).
4. Does the proposal have regard to conserving the character of areas of cultural heritage significance, including designated heritage conservation districts and cultural heritage landscapes, by encouraging those land uses, development and site alteration activities that protect, maintain and enhance these areas within the City as stated in policy section B.3.4.2.1(h).

Natural Heritage Planning

1. Does the proposed development have regard to the Core Areas Boundary policy C.2.2.3 of the Rural Hamilton Official Plan?
2. Does the applicant's Environmental Impact Statement have regard to the policies under the Rural Hamilton Official Plan including but not limited to,C.2.3.3 and F.3.2.1.features and functions of the Core Areas will not be negatively impacted?
3. Has adequate consideration been given to the protection of trees in conformity with Rural Hamilton Official Plan Policy C.2.10.1?

City Issues Regarding Development Permit

Planning

1. Does the application demonstrate that it meets Part 2 General Development Criteria of the NECP.
2. Does the application demonstrate compliance with Section 2.2.9 Niagara Escarpment Plan Development Criteria which states that the gross floor area of buildings and related structures used for institutional uses shall not exceed 500 square metres, unless a larger size can be demonstrated to be compatible with the site and the surrounding landscape?
3. Does the proposed development demonstrate compliance with Development Criteria Section 2.3.1 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan which states that an existing use may change to a similar use or a more compatible use only if it can be sufficiently demonstrated that the objectives of the applicable designation of this plan are met.

Natural Heritage Planning

1. Does the proposed development demonstrate compliance with Section 2.2.1 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan Development Criteria which indicates that the Escarpment Environment shall be protected, restored and where possible enhanced for the long-term having regard to single, multiple or successive development that have occurred or are likely to occur.
2. Does the proposed development demonstrate compliance with Natural Heritage Policies as stated within Section 2.7 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan Development Criteria?

Cultural Heritage

1. Does the proposed development demonstrate compliance to section 2.10 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Cultural Heritage Development Criteria which indicates policies to conserve the Escarpment's Cultural Heritage Resources.

Infrastructure.

1. Does the proposal demonstrate compliance with Section 2.12 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Infrastructure Development Criteria?
2. Does the proposal demonstrate compliance with Section 2.12.7 of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, Infrastructure Development Criteria? Section 2.12.7 states Municipal water and wastewater systems shall not be located in or extended into Escarpment Rural Area, unless such servicing is required to address failed individual on-site sewage or water services, or to ensure the protection of public health where it has been determined by a medical officer of health (or health authority) that there is a public health concern associated with the existing services and the capacity of services provided in these circumstances will be restricted to that required to service the affected area and shall not allow for growth or development beyond what is permitted in this Plan.
3. Has the applicant considered the overall implications of the increased sanitary services that are required to facilitate the use? (Section 5.1 Private Water and Wastewater Services)

While there are no major private servicing concerns for the property at 574 Northcliffe Avenue, a few optional considerations have been identified. The property is partially municipally serviced, with access to municipal water but not municipal wastewater. Due to daily design sewage flows exceeding 10,000 L/day, the septic system falls under the regulatory oversight of the Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP), and an Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA) is required. Although the Source Protection has limited comments on the septic design itself, it requests circulation of technical reports related to ECA amendments. To inform any future comments, Hamilton Water would appreciate receiving influent, effluent, and groundwater quality data from the past five years.

Additionally, if construction activities require dewatering, the discharge must comply with the City's Sewer Use Bylaw. Early consultation with the Environmental Monitoring and Enforcement Group is recommended, as additional review may be necessary to ensure the wastewater system can accommodate the discharge.

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc.
2. Pleasant View Protection Corp.
3. City of Hamilton
4. Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc. (Reply)

ATTACHMENT 4

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL DATES

EVENT	DATE
List of Witnesses	February 12, 2026
Expert Witness Meeting	February 19, 2026
Agreed Statement of Facts & Remaining Issues	February 26, 2026
Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc. Witness and Expert Witness Statements	March 19, 2026
Participant Statements (if any)	March 19, 2026
Confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are required	April 27, 2026
City of Hamilton and PVPC Responding Witness Statements	April 17, 2026
Columbia Northcliffe Campus Inc. Reply Witness Statements	May 15, 2026
City Responding Witness Statements to PVPC evidence PVPC Responding Witness Statements to City evidence	May 15, 2026
Visual Evidence	May 25, 2026
Hearing Plan	May 25, 2026
Joint Document Book	May 25, 2026
OLT Hearing Commences	June 1, 2026