Ontario Land Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire 655 rue Bay, suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web: olt.gov.on.ca

Date: December 24, 2025

VIA EMAIL

Al Burton aburton@trlaw.com Counsel for Blueland Farms Ltd.

Zachary D’Onofrio S. Dalton A. Bello (student-at-law) Zachary.d’onofrio@ontario.ca Sarah.dalton2@ontario.ca Alisia.Bello@ontario.ca Counsel for the Ministry of Natural Resources

Chris Barnett cbarnett@osler.com Counsel for the Town of Caledon

G. Reeder Peter Gross Graham.reeder@gowlingwlg.com Peter.gross@gowlingwlg.com Counsel for Richard Pilosof

Dear Parties,

Re: Appeal against Decisions of the Niagara Escarpment Commission on Development Permit Applications

Case No(s).: OLT-23-001202 – (NEC Decision Nos.: P/E 2017-2018/408 & P/E/2023- 2024/291)

A Hearing regarding the above referenced case was held on November 25, 2025.

The Hearing Officer has now given her Report to the Minister of Natural Resources (“Minister”) pursuant to subsection 25(11) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2 (“NEPDA”).

Further to subsection 25(14) of the NEPDA, the final decision on the development permit applications is to be rendered by the Minister.

For further information, please contact the Natural Heritage Section, Ministry of Natural Resources, 300 Water Street, 300 Water Street, 2nd Floor South, Peterborough, ON K9J 3C7 at naturalheritage@ontario.ca

Yours truly,

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN REGISTRAR

cc: Niagara Escarpment Commission nec@ontario.ca Natural Heritage Section Ministry of Natural Resources naturalheritage@ontario.ca

Ontario Land Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Telephone: (416) 212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 Website: olt.gov.on.ca

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire 655 rue Bay, suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5 Téléphone: (416) 212-6349 Sans Frais: 1-866-448-2248 Site Web: olt.gov.on.ca

December 24, 2025

VIA EMAIL

Rocco Vacca, Chair Niagara Escarpment Commission 232 Guelph Street Georgetown, ON L7G 4B1 nec.chair@ontario.ca

Dear Mr. Vacca,

Re: Proposed Amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan to redesignate the Subject Property from Escarpment Rural Area to Mineral Resource Extraction Area

Case No(s).: OLT-23-001202 – Proposed Niagara Plan Amendment No. PP 213 18

Pursuant to subsection 10(8) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2, as amended, attached is my report on the Hearing, which I held regarding the above-noted proposed Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment.

Yours truly, “S. Braun”

S. BRAUN VICE-CHAIR

cc.: The Honourable Mike Harris, Minister, MNR Al Burton Demetrius Kappos Chris Barnett Paula Boutis Municipal Contact for the Town of Caledon The Clerk, the Town of Caledon Rodney Northey Peter Gross Graham Reeder Chris Hummel Ezra Satok-Wolman David Fowler Nikola Balaban Sandy Kang-Gill / Majinder Gill Miriam Kelly Robert Shapton Cynthia Kelly Barrett Sandy Dobbyn Julie Magee

ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000089, OLT-23-001202, OLT-24-000238

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant and Appellant: Blueland Farms Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the establishment of a gravel pit on the subject property Reference Number: POPA 2013 -0002 Property Address: 17736 Heart Lake Road (Part Lot 12, Concessions 2 (EHS)) Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000089 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000089 OLT Case Name: Blueland Farms Ltd. v. Caledon (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 10(3) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2 Appellant: Blueland Farms Ltd. Subject: Proposed Amendment to the Niagara Escarpment Plan Description: To amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan for permission of mineral aggregate resource extraction on the subject property and add special policy to allow transportation of mineral materials Reference Number.: Proposed Niagara Plan Amendment No. PP 213 18 Property Address: 17736 Heart Lake Road Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001202 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001202 OLT Case Name: Plan Amendment No. 213 18 (Re)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2 Appellant: Blueland Farms Ltd. Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission Subject: Refusal of a Development Permit Application Description: To propose an establishment of a new 25.97 hectare aggregate extraction operation (gravel pit) on a portion of a 40.5 hectare property Reference Number.: P/E/2017-2018/408 Property Address: 17736 Heart Lake Road Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001189 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001202 OLT Case Name: Blueland Farms Ltd. v. Ontario (Niagara Escarpment Commission)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 25(5.1) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.2 Appellant: Blueland Farms Ltd. Respondent: Niagara Escarpment Commission Subject: Refusal of a Development Permit Application Description: To allow for the transport of up to 750,000 tonnes (annually) of extracted aggregate from 17736 Heart Lake Road to an aggregate operation at 17679 Kennedy Road Reference Number.: P/E/2023-2024/291 Property Address: 17679 Kennedy Road Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001190 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001202

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8 Referred by: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Objector: Nikola Balaban Objector: Donna Baylis Objector: Victor Bras and Valentina Tovpeko Objector: Sandy and Paul Caletti Objector: Cheryl Connors; and others Applicant: Blueland Farms Ltd. Subject: Application for a Class A Licence, Category 1 Pit Below Water for the removal of aggregate Description: McCormick Pit Reference Number: Licence No. 626266 Property Address: Part Lot 12, Concession 2 EHS Municipality/UT: Caledon/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000238 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000238 OLT Case Name: Blueland Farms Ltd. v. Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry)

Heard: November 25, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Blueland Farms Ltd.	A. Burton
Town of Caledon	C. Barnett
Ministry of Natural Resources	Z. D’Onofrio, S. Dalton, A. Bello (student-at-law)
Richard Pilosof	G. Reeder, P. Gross (in absentia)

REPORT AND DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order follows a Motion to consider a settlement proposal in relation to a number of appeals and referrals heard together and described in more detail in paragraphs [2] through [4]. The matters before the Tribunal relate to an undertaking by Blueland Farms Ltd. (“Proponent”), which seeks to extract aggregate on part of the lands at 17736 Heart Lake Road (“Subject Property”). The Subject Property is located on the west side of Heart Lake Road, just east of Caledon Sand and Gravel (“CSG”), which is operated under ARA Licence Numbers 6512 and 19073 by James Dick Construction Limited. The operation proposed on the Subject Property, known as the McCormick Pit, is for a sand and gravel pit functioning as an extension to the existing CSG operation.

2Tribunal File No. OLT-23-000089 is an appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act (“PA”) against the failure of the Town of Caledon (“Town”) to make a decision within the legislated timelines on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) to permit the establishment of a gravel pit at the Subject Property.

3Tribunal File No. OLT-24-000238 is an appeal pursuant to s. 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act (“ARA”) relating to an application for a Class A Licence, Category 1 Pit Below Water, referred to the Tribunal by the Ministry of Natural Resources (“MNR”).

4Tribunal File No(s). OLT-23-001202, OLT-23-001189 and OLT-23-001190 relate to an application to amend the Niagara Escarpment Plan (“NEP”) pursuant to s. 10(3) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act (“NEPDA”), referred to the Tribunal by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (“NEC”), as well as appeals pursuant to s. 25(5.1) of the NEPDA of the refusal of two NEC Development Permits (“Development Permits”). With respect to these matters, the Tribunal acts in its role as the Niagara Escarpment Hearing Office (“Hearing Office”).

5All matters before the Tribunal were ordered to be heard together pursuant to Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), in part, because the evidence and submissions in relation to the specific issues under appeal and the statutory tests overlapped significantly. As such, the below review of the evidence and submissions and the analysis thereof serves as the required report summarizing representations made and findings in support of the recommendations of the Hearing Office in relation to the NEPDA matters.

BACKGROUND

6The extensive background and procedural history of these appeals are summarized in previous Case Management Conference (“CMC”) decisions. However, for context, some of the more pertinent details are summarized below. At previous CMCs:

• the Region of Peel, which previously had Party status, withdrew from the proceedings;
• the Tribunal was provided with regular updates in relation to ongoing Indigenous consultation with Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council and with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council;
• Objectors were directed to communicate with the assigned Case Coordinator and the Parties by August 27, 2024 to clarify whether they intended to participate in the hearing and, if so, to provide a list of issues for adjudication;
• No communications from any of the Objectors were received by the deadline, and hearing dates were scheduled thereafter;
• a Procedural Order and Issues List to govern the proceeding leading up to and including the hearing was issued on January 8, 2025;
• at the fifth and final CMC, held on June 6, 2025, the Tribunal granted a joint request by the Parties to suspend all remaining deliverable deadlines in the Procedural Order due to an anticipated resolution of the issues under appeal.

7Prior to the scheduled hearing, the Proponent entered into Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) with Richard Pilosof (closest neighbour to the proposed McCormick Pit), as well as the NEC and the Town. Significant revisions to the proposed OPA, the ARA Site Plans and Development Permit Conditions resulted from these various agreements, including, but not limited to:

• Separating the post-rehabilitation lake feature into two lakes instead of joining with the planned lake at the adjacent CSG pit as initially proposed;
• Updating the approach for the proposed hydraulic barrier, reflecting discussions with agency staff and additional studies completed in relation to groundwater monitoring;
• Adjusting the limit of extraction, berm and plantings along Heart Lake Road to address concerns from an abutting neighbour;
• Introducing improvements to the air quality Best Management Practices Plan (“BMPP”), including a monitoring component; and
• Adding additional ecological monitoring for adjacent wetlands.

8The Tribunal was advised that, through the various revisions and conditions, MNR’s technical concerns with the applications had been addressed and all issues between the Parties had been resolved (save and except for the outstanding issue of Indigenous consultation). In accordance with the terms of the agreement between the Proponent and the NEC, the NEC did not appear at the hearing and advised that it does not object to the proposed settlement.

9With respect to the remaining issue of Indigenous consultation, counsel for the Proponent and MNR submitted that consultation with Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council was ongoing and, as a result, the Tribunal would be asked to issue an Interim Order, contingent upon the Crown advising that adequate Indigenous consultation has occurred.

10Notice of the Hearing was provided to the Objectors and Participants on November 5, 2025. The Tribunal and the Objectors/Participants were provided with copies of Motion materials in support of the proposed settlement on November 18, 2025. As such, the Proponent requested an Order abridging the time for service of the Notice of Motion, pursuant to Rule 10.5 of the Rules, which was granted by the Tribunal without objection.

11The Motion materials include, but are not limited to, a detailed Affidavit sworn by James Parkin, Registered Professional Planner, called by Blueland (whom the Tribunal qualified to provide opinion evidence in land use planning) and Agreed Statements of Fact (“ASF”) authored by the Parties’ retained experts in the following professional disciplines: Land Use Planning, Air Quality, Natural Heritage, Terrestrial Ecology, and Hydrogeology.

12In addition to the Motion materials, the Proponent submitted a publicly available Frequently Asked Questions (“F.A.Q.”) document prepared by the Proponent’s planning consultants. The F.A.Q. was designed to inform members of the public about the proposed operation and address common questions/concerns.

13Finally, the Tribunal had before it and considered a compendium of letters/statements of concern from the remaining Objectors to the applications, along with position papers received from Objectors on specific issues (Social Impact; Air Quality; Excess Soil; Land Use; Recycling of Materials; Property Values and Aggregate Reserves), as well as several written Participant statements echoing many of the concerns raised by the Objectors. The Tribunal notes that, following receipt of the Motion materials, no Objectors or Participants filed updated Objections/written statements in advance of the Hearing.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

14With respect to the application for the ARA licence, regard must be given to the considerations set out in s. 12(1)(a) to (k) of the ARA, including but not limited to, the effect of the operation on the environment, nearby communities, ground and surface water resources (including drinking water sources), quality and quantity of the aggregate on site, planning and land use considerations, haul routes and suitability of the rehabilitation plans for the site.

15The PA requires Tribunal decisions to have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2, including but not limited to the protection of ecological systems (including natural areas, features and functions), conservation and management of natural resources and the mineral resource base, efficient use and conservation of water, and protection of public health and safety. The proposed OPA must be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and not conflict with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the NEP) and must conform with the Official Plan of the Region of Peel1 and align with the overall vision of the Town OP, as proposed to be amended. The PA also requires regard for decisions of the municipal council and the materials before it. In this case, the Town did not make a decision within the statutory timelines but appeared at the hearing and provided submissions in support of the proposed settlement.

16With respect to the proposed NEP amendment (to redesignate the Subject Property from Escarpment Rural Area to Mineral Resource Extraction Area), based on the representations made, the Hearing Office must provide a recommendation to the NEC on whether the proposed amendment should be accepted, rejected or modified. In making a recommendation, the Hearing Office is required to consider whether the proposed amendment: meets the purpose and objectives of the NEP and the NEPDA; would have impacts that adversely affect the purpose and objectives of the NEP and the NEPDA; is consistent with other relevant Provincial policies (in this case, the PPS); and is justified (through a rationale for the amendment and reasons, argument or evidence in support of the proposed change to the NEP). The Hearing Office must also consider the relevant development criteria in Part 2 of the NEP.

17With respect to the appeals of the NEC’s refusal to issue the proposed Development Permits, the Hearing Office must determine whether the NEC’s decision is correct and should not be changed. In considering this issue, the Hearing Office must determine whether the NEC properly applied relevant legislation and policies. If the Hearing Office determines the refusal was not correct and should be changed, it makes a recommendation to the Minister of Natural Resources (“Minister”) with respect to the proposed permits and any proposed conditions, which must conform with the NEP, be consistent with the PPS and comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements under the NEPDA.

18Overall, the instruments and conditions proposed to permit the aggregate operation must be found to be representative of good planning in the public interest. Many of the objectives of the NEP/NEPDA and the development criteria in the NEP overlap with considerations in s. 12(1) of the ARA, matters of provincial interest and policies in the PPS, as well as the applicable OPs. These include, but are not limited to, ensuring development is compatible with the natural environment; protection of unique ecological areas; and maintaining/enhancing the quality and character of natural streams and water supplies. Altogether, the legislative and policy scheme provides a clear continuum of provincial thinking on the matters to be considered, and their importance in determining whether the proposal before the Tribunal is representative of good planning in the public interest.

DECISION/REPORT

19Mr. Parkin provided uncontested evidence which addressed how the proposal to settle all five matters meets the many requisite legislative tests and, in a comprehensive and sensitive manner, addressed the various concerns raised by the Objectors/Participants to these proceedings. He noted that the proposed ARA Site Plans and the detailed conditions incorporated therein represent the primary tool for regulation of the proposed operation, further bolstered by the proposed conditions in relation to the NEC Development Permits.

20Upon the evidence presented and the submissions of the Parties, discussed in further detail below, the Tribunal was satisfied that all necessary legislative tests have indeed been met and the objections/concerns raised in relation to the Proponent’s undertaking have been resolved/adequately addressed.

21Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, in part (on an interim basis, contingent upon the Crown advising that adequate Indigenous consultation has occurred). The Tribunal approved the OPA and directed the Minister to issue the Class A licence. In its capacity as the Hearing Office, the Tribunal recommended to the NEC acceptance of the proposed amendment to the NEP and recommended that the Minister issue the Development Permits subject to the proposed conditions. For clarity, while recommendations in relation to the NEPDA matters have been made, the final decision on those matters rests with the Minister and the Tribunal’s Final Order will not be issued prior to the fulfillment of the contingent pre-requisite in relation to Indigenous consultation.

EVIDENCE

Subject Property

22The Subject Property, which has historically been used for agricultural pasture and is currently designated for rural uses, is primarily surrounded by existing aggregate extraction operations, along with limited agricultural uses, rural residential dwellings and natural heritage features. There has been significant previous and ongoing extraction activity in the area, and Provincial, Regional and local planning documents identify the Subject Property as containing significant sand and gravel resources, with technical reports confirming that it contains approximately eight million tonnes of aggregate resources.

23Mr. Parkin explained that the Town’s in-force aggregate policies are contained in Official Plan Amendment No. 161, which established two categories of protected High Potential Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas: Mineral Aggregate Reserve Areas and Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas. The Subject Property is located within High Potential Mineral Resource Area 6a, and new pits and quarries are encouraged to be located within Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas, as they have been determined to be suitable for aggregate extraction, subject to meeting the applicable policies of the OP.

24The Town’s Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas were determined based on criteria including, but not limited to: location on a recommended haul route and in an area with existing extraction as well as completion of sub-watershed studies considering cumulative impacts. The Tribunal heard that the Town’s aggregate policies encourage concentrations/groupings of pits and use of existing infrastructure. Mr. Parkin explained that the proposed operation aligns with provincial and local policies noting that the Subject Property is located close to market and near major Regional and Town roads which provide access to those markets, which align with matters of provincial interest and PPS policies.

25Mr. Parkin further explained that the Subject Property is located within the Niagara Escarpment Rural Area of the NEP and development within the NEP is regulated through a development permit system. One of the objectives of the Escarpment Rural Area is to provide for the consideration of new mineral resource extraction areas. New licensed pits and quarries producing more than 20,000 tonnes annually are a permitted use through an amendment to the NEP provided they meet applicable development criteria which address various planning considerations including, but not limited to, natural heritage features, mineral aggregate resources and scenic resources.

Overview of Proposed Operation

26The initial proposal for the McCormick Pit began in 2013 with an application for an OPA. That proposal was later withdrawn and in 2018, the applications underlying the present appeals and referrals were submitted. The 2018 proposal was significantly revised to address feedback received from members of the public on the initial proposal. Mr. Parkin reviewed two of the more significant changes in some detail, as they resolve concerns raised by the Objectors/Participants to these proceedings relating to traffic and ancillary uses/recycling activities.

27Firstly, the McCormick Pit was originally proposed to be a standalone pit with its own processing plant and tonnage limit, a separate truck entrance and a haul route along Heart Lake Road. Mr. Parkin explained that the current proposal is for the McCormick Pit to function as an extension of the existing CSG operation, noting that the overall tonnage of material taken over the lifetime of the two pits will not increase from what is currently licenced for the CSG operation. The only operational access to the McCormick Pit is proposed to be through the existing CSG access from Highway 10, and haul trucks will not be permitted to use Heart Lake Road. The primary means proposed for transporting material extracted from the McCormick Pit to the CSG main processing area is via a conveyor – one in the water on the Subject Property and another under Kennedy Road, which is already in existence and in use.

28Consequently, the amount of traffic will not increase, and potential negative traffic impacts have been mitigated with the McCormick Pit functioning as a “feeder pit” using CSG’s established entrance and Highway 10 as a haul route, which is identified within the Town’s Official Plan (“OP”) as a road where aggregate haul routes should be located. Although some residual concerns were raised in relation to already existing traffic issues (for instance trucks not using permitted haul routes and carrying overweight loads on Highway 10), Mr. Parkin noted that enforcement lies with the Ministry of Transportation and that approval of the present proposal will not have any measurable effect upon existing traffic conditions.

29Secondly, the originally proposed activities at the McCormick Pit included accepting and recycling demolished concrete and asphalt. Although this is a relatively common ancillary activity at gravel pits in Ontario, Mr. Parkin explained that, in direct response to feedback from the public, recycling was removed as a proposed permitted use. As such, although many of the Objectors to this proceeding remained concerned about concrete/asphalt recycling, Mr. Parkin testified that this was not an issue and explained the unlikelihood of such a use being sought in the future citing, for example, logistical difficulties with transporting such materials onto the Subject Property and the need to seek the necessary approvals to add such a use.

30The current proposal seeks a licence area of approximately 26 hectares (“ha”) on the Subject Property, 20 ha of which is proposed for aggregate extraction. The remainder of the Subject Property (approximately 14.5 ha) is not proposed to be licenced and would remain in a natural condition consisting of scattered deciduous woodland and Provincially Significant Wetlands (“PSW”). A portion of on-site woodlands would be removed through the proposed operation, but large portions of woodlands are proposed to be retained and protected.

Remaining Objections/Participant Concerns

31Mr. Parkin explained that, despite the changes discussed above, several other concerns raised by the Objectors and Participants remained, which overlapped considerably with the issues raised by the Town, the NEC and Mr. Pilosof. Following mandatory experts’ meetings and discussions, further revisions to the proposed instruments and conditions were made, which now satisfy the Parties and their independent subject matter experts. The revisions include, but are not limited to:

• Reduction to the limit of extraction “pulling back” from Heart Lake Road, along with various plantings and berms along Heart Lake Road as well as timing requirements for the construction of those berms;
• Separating a proposed post-rehabilitation lake feature into two lakes instead of adjoining with a planned lake feature at the adjacent CSG operation;
• Additional ecological monitoring for adjacent wetlands; and
• Introducing improvements to the air quality Best Management Practices Plan (“BMPP”), including requirements for additional and continuous air quality monitoring.

32While the Affidavit evidence of Mr. Parkin provided an in-depth policy review demonstrating how the proposed instruments and conditions to permit the operation meet all of the necessary legislative tests, the majority of his viva voce evidence intentionally focused on addressing, at length, the ways in which the proposal before the Tribunal resolves the remaining concerns of the Objectors/Participants, which he grouped into the following categories: Water Quality/Quantity, Natural Environment, Noise, Air Quality, Human Health and Social Impacts. He addressed each category in detail with reference to applicable legislative provisions, planning policies, the experts’ ASFs, the proposed ARA Site Plan and various recommended conditions to both the Site Plan and the Development Permits.

Water Quality/Quantity

33Concerns in relation to potential impacts, in this regard, focused mainly on ensuring adequate and potable supply of water (municipal wells and private residential wells) and ensuring protection of wetlands, creeks and springs in the area. Some Objectors/Participants also raised concerns in relation to cumulative impacts of the proposed and existing aggregate operations on water quantity and quality, and climate change in terms of potential drought which might occur in extreme circumstances. These concerns were also initially raised by the NEC but were resolved to its satisfaction through the hydrogeological recommendations incorporated into the ARA Site Plans.

34The Tribunal heard that MNR and the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (“MECP”) provided significant input into conditions of approval incorporated into the proposed ARA Site Plan, including but not limited to:

• Establishment of a detailed monitoring program with recommended trigger mechanisms and contingency plans; and
• A robust Waterwell Interference Complaint Response which, inter alia, puts the onus upon the operator (with oversight by MNR and MECP) to address, at the operator’s expense, any unexpected interference with well water caused by the operation by deepening or replacing the well to ensure historic water production quality standards are maintained and shall ensure a continuous supply of potable water to the affected landowner.

35Mr. Parkin drew attention to the ASF of the Hydrogeological experts, confirming agreement that the studies and data used were appropriate and sufficient, that cumulative effects had been considered and that no significant impacts to groundwater, surface water, private water supplies or local natural environmental features are expected.

Natural Environment

36There are natural heritage features on and around the proposed operation. Applicable Provincial, Regional and local planning policies define these features and outline policies providing varying degrees of protection. The relevant natural heritage features on and adjacent to the Subject Property were identified in a Natural Environment Technical Report (“NETR”) prepared by Savanta. The NETR identifies Significant Wildlife Habitat and Habitat of Endangered or Threatened Species and other woodlands in portions of the area proposed for development, as well as Provincially Significant Wetlands, Significant Wildlife Habitat and Fish Habitat on adjacent lands.

37Mr. Parkin explained that Provincial, Regional and local policies allow for some disturbance of features under the category of Significant Wildlife Habitat subject to ensuring minimizing impacts along with rehabilitation and restoration of the feature as quickly as possible. He testified that Provincially Significant Wetlands have been excluded from the proposed extraction area and the hydrogeological regime which supports ecologic functions will be maintained.

38The Tribunal heard that the ARA Site Plan incorporates necessary considerations to ensure protection, maintenance or enhancement of natural heritage features and functions and connectivity between features. Further, the proposed Development Permit conditions include clauses which, inter alia, specify that the development shall occur in accordance with the final plans (including the ARA Site Plan and the progressive and final rehabilitation plans), and that no vegetation shall be cut or removed except for that identified within the final plans. It is noted that any proposed changes to the final plans which form part of the licences issued under the ARA shall be submitted to the NEC for review and any change that constitutes development will require a permit unless exempt under the regulations, in keeping with s. 24 of the NEPDA.

39The rehabilitation of the Subject Property is proposed to take place progressively in phases and will ultimately include the creation of a lake with shallow shoreline areas around the perimeter to enhance biodiversity. The Tribunal heard that significant attention was paid to rehabilitation requirements, both in terms of augmenting and accelerating those requirements. The Tribunal also heard that MNR will be involved in making amendments to the ARA Site Plan for CSG’s Licence Number 19703, which will allow coordination with the proposed rehabilitation plans for the McCormick Pit and result in an enhanced wildlife corridor.

40The Tribunal heard that the reduction in the proposed area for extraction results in both hydrogeologic and natural heritage benefits, and that the NEC and Town’s recommendations for planting cells and shoreline treatments have been incorporated into the proposed ARA Site Plan and conditions along with additional baseline investigations and further biological monitoring requirements. Mr. Parkin drew the Tribunal’s attention to the ASF of the Natural Heritage experts, which also reviews applicable Provincial, Regional and local policies and notes that the proposal before the Tribunal resolves all outstanding natural heritage issues. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Parkin opined there will be no unacceptable impacts from a natural heritage perspective.

Noise, Air Quality and Human Health

41Mr. Parkin noted that the remaining Objector/Participant concerns in this category focused upon overall enjoyment of property, the potential for adverse impacts on human health arising from noise and dust, created not only by the proposed operation but the cumulative impacts of the proposed operation and existing operations, as well as noise impacts on Caledon Village resulting from the proposed location of a crusher at the northwest corner of the Subject Property.

42Aercoustics Engineering Limited conducted a Noise Impact Assessment which recommended specific measures be incorporated into the design of the operation to ensure minimization of noise impacts to acceptable levels as outlined in Provincial noise guidelines. These include, but are not limited to, restrictions on the number and types of extraction equipment, areas of operation and the establishment of acoustical berms.

43Following peer review and further discussions with the Town of Caledon, further revisions were made to address potential noise impacts, including a reduction in the proposed hours of operation. The ARA Site Plan now includes detail with respect to those hours of operation (generally 7 am to 7pm on weekdays and 7 am to 3pm on Saturdays, no operations on Sundays and Statutory Holidays).

44Mr. Parkin testified that while an ASF, in relation to noise, was not included with the Motion materials, all concerns raised by the Town’s peer reviewer were addressed through changes to the ARA Site Plan. In addition, the agreement reached between the Proponent and Mr. Pilosof resulted in two significant revisions. First, a reduction of the proposed extraction area which has been “pulled back” from Heart Lake Road, and second, a requirement to construct a berm prior to the commencement of extraction, which aids in the mitigation of potential noise impacts, in general. Finally, with respect to the proposed location of the crusher, the Tribunal heard that although it is close to Caledon Village, it is further away from the residential properties on Heart Lake Road and provincial guideline limits are met.

45Mr. Parkin acknowledged the potential impacts upon human health arising from unacceptable levels of dust, especially fine particulate matter and further acknowledged that there are provincially regulated limits in this regard that cannot be exceeded. He explained that the Air Quality Assessment prepared by Arcadis Canada assessed cumulative effects on air quality from the proposed and existing aggregate operations. Concerns raised by the Town’s peer reviewer led to significant revisions to the proposed ARA Site Plan notes and the Dust Management Practices Plan, which includes mitigation measures including watering of haul roads to manage dust and particulate matter. There will be ongoing quantitative monitoring of different dust particle sizes, and the data will not only be used by the operator to inform mitigation efforts but will be made accessible to regulating agencies and the public.

46Counsel for the Town submitted that, following extensive independent peer reviews and input, substantial changes were made to the ARA Site Plan. With respect to air quality issues, in particular, the Town insisted upon continuous enhanced monitoring, which Mr. Parkin testified was among the highest standard he has seen throughout his career.

47Relying upon applicable technical reports and the proposed ARA Site Plan, which incorporates recommended revisions, monitoring/reporting requirements and mitigation measures, Mr. Parkin testified that noise, dust and fine particulate matter will be below applicable standards and that any adverse impacts will be appropriately mitigated.

Social Impacts

48Mr. Parkin opined that social impacts have been adequately addressed through the completion of the various assessments and reports in relation to matters already discussed such as noise, dust, traffic, etc., which found no unacceptable impacts would be created. Despite concerns raised by the Objectors/Participants with the adequacy of those assessments and reports, he explained that all assessments/reports were completed in accordance with acceptable standards, regulations and guidelines, and that applicable mitigation measures have been incorporated into the ARA Site Plan.

Other Commonly Raised Objections/Concerns

49Mr. Parkin testified that there will be no unacceptable visual impacts, referencing a Visual Impact Report, prepared in accordance with requirements of the NEP and the Town OP, by Harrington McAvan and the ASF of the Land Use Planners. The ASF indicates that policy requirements for visual impacts have been satisfactorily addressed and there are no outstanding concerns, as scenic resources and the open landscape character of the site will be maintained and enhanced. The Tribunal heard that the proposed design specific conditions of the NEC Development Permits and requirements in the ARA Site Plan incorporate various screening, buffering and landscaping to appropriately mitigate visual impacts.

50In response to concerns about accepting off-site fill which could be contaminated, Mr. Parkin testified that while not uncommon for the rehabilitation of pits and quarries to include fill brought in from outside sources, this would not be permitted and was not being proposed for the McCormick Pit.

51In addition to the foregoing, a number of objections and concerns raised were not planning related (i.e. property values, issues of enforcement and dissatisfaction with in-force planning policies and fees), but Mr. Parkin briefly addressed same. While impacts on property values are not a factor used to determine if a proposed land use is acceptable or appropriate in Ontario, it was noted that property values are indirectly addressed through the proposal, which minimizes and mitigates impacts to ensure land use compatibility. With respect to in-force planning policies and fee regimes, Mr. Parkin explained that these are not issues for the Tribunal and that his opinion as a planner must be based on what is currently in force and effect. Finally, Mr. Parkin acknowledged shortcomings in past MNR oversight of aggregate operations. However, he referenced a recent 2023 Auditor General Report which identified such shortcomings and made several recommendations that have been implemented by MNR (including hiring of additional staff and improving compliance assessment forms). Mr. Parkin expressed the view that, in light of the foregoing, it is reasonable to expect improved compliance/enforcement going forward.

52The Tribunal notes that some of the Objectors attended the hearing and reiterated concerns and questions already before the Tribunal, mainly relating to traffic, air quality and human health concerns. Mr. Parkin responded directly to those Objectors, largely repeating portions of the evidence given in support of the proposed settlement. He concluded his evidence on Objector/Participant concerns by acknowledging that the myriad revisions made to the proposed instruments and operation might not satisfy every Objector, Participant or concerned resident, but nevertheless offering the opinion that those revisions either resolve or at least adequately address matters of public concern.

Planning Opinion on the Tests to be Met

53To the extent that the evidence provided on Objector/Participant concerns may not have fully addressed the requisite legislative tests to be met, Mr. Parkin provided the Tribunal with his opinion in this regard. In his view, the proposed instruments, subject to the various recommended conditions, and the operation they would permit, represent good land use planning in the public interest and wise use/management of high-quality resources to produce asphalt and concrete required for infrastructure in a location close to market.

54He reviewed the proposed instruments against applicable matters of provincial interest and the criteria in s. 12(1) of the ARA in detail, opining that appropriate regard has been given to each. With reference to applicable PPS, NEP, Regional and Town OP policies, Mr. Parkin opined that consistency and conformity have been demonstrated. He also expressed the view that the many reports and studies before the Tribunal, which were subject to rigorous independent peer review, further support a finding that the proposed McCormick Pit meets the requirements of the PA, NEPDA and ARA.

55The recommended conditions of the proposed Development Permits were reviewed in detail, and Mr. Parkin noted that they overlap significantly with the conditions within the ARA Site Plan. He considered this to be significant, because any future changes to the operation would require two levels of approval (MNR and NEC) and no site alteration can occur which is not in accordance with the ARA Site Plans. He also noted that the Development Permit conditions proposed codify NEC’s site inspection rights to ensure operational compliance. In his view, all recommended conditions are appropriate and provide an added layer of assurance with respect to the particulars of the proposed operation, monitoring, reporting, mitigation and rehabilitation.

56Finally, he acknowledged the outstanding issue of Indigenous consultation, and recommended the Tribunal withhold a Final Order pending the Crown advising of the completion of adequate consultation with Six Nations of the Grand River Elected Council and with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council.

57Counsel for the Proponent and the Town submitted that the proposed settlement is the result of extensive work on the part of subject matter experts and consultants for all Parties involved, including the closest neighbour to the proposed operation. Counsel for the Proponent added that all public concerns, including those raised by Objectors/Participants to this proceeding were carefully considered and, where appropriate, revisions were made in an effort to resolve/adequately address same.

CONCLUSION

58Overall, the evidence demonstrates that the proposed instruments and recommended conditions of approval, including the detailed conditions in the ARA Site Plan and the proposed conditions in relation to the Development Permits adequately resolve/address the various concerns raised by the Objectors/Participants. The Tribunal is further satisfied by the detailed Affidavit and viva voce evidence of Mr. Parkin and the materials filed in support of the Motion, that the proposed instruments and conditions meet the many requisite legislative tests.

59The Tribunal finds the proposed operation on the Subject Property has been appropriately planned and designed to avoid, minimize or mitigate potential adverse impacts from noise, dust and other contaminants on sensitive land uses. The recommended ARA Site Plan Conditions and Development Permit conditions, as they will be implemented, provide adequate and appropriate mitigation, rehabilitation, monitoring, reporting and accountability measures. The proposal appropriately aligns with and balances provincial, regional and local policies which speak to making aggregate resources available as close to market as possible and ensuring protection of: ecological/natural features and functions; water quantity and quality; public health and safety; and the financial and economic well-being of the province and its municipalities.

60On the representations made, the Hearing Office has been satisfied that the proposed amendment to the NEP is consistent with the PPS, meets the purpose and objectives of the NEP and the NEPDA/does not have impacts that adversely affect same, and is justified. The Development Criteria in Part 2 of the NEP have been considered and the Hearing Office finds that redesignation of the Subject Property will permit an aggregate operation that is compatible with the Escarpment natural environment, protects/maintains/enhances natural heritage and hydrologic features and, through proposed rehabilitation plans, will restore and enhance open landscape character.

61The NEC refused the Development Permit applications as follows:

The associated Niagara Escarpment Plan amendment PP213 was referred to the Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) for a hearing due to objections. The development permit and amendment applications can be processed together through a consolidated hearing at the OLT.

62The Hearing Office finds the NEC’s refusal of the Development Permits was incorrect and should be changed. The NEC did not properly apply/consider relevant legislation and policies, providing no real reasons for the refusals. Effectively, the NEC did not make any decision on the Development Permit applications but rather, deferred the decision to the Tribunal. While it is acknowledged that the Development Permits could not issue without the acceptance of the proposed amendment to the NEP, the NEC could have considered the Development Permits and evaluated same against the relevant legislation and policies and could, in the event it was otherwise properly satisfied, have rendered a decision conditionally approving the Development Permits pending acceptance of the proposed NEP amendment by the Minister.

63Accordingly, the Hearing Office recommends the Minister issue the Development Permits subject to the list of conditions agreed upon by the Parties, having been persuaded by the evidence and representations summarized above that those proposed Development Permits and conditions conform with the NEP, as it is proposed to be amended, are consistent with the PPS and comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements under the NEPDA.

64As previously mentioned, although the Hearing Office has provided its recommendations on the Development Permits and the proposed amendment to the NEP, it should be noted that the final decision on these matters ultimately rests with the Minister.

ORDER

65THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT an abridgement of the time for the filing of the Notice of Motion, as required by Rule 10.5 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, is granted.

66THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed in part on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation of the pre-requisite matter identified in paragraph [69] below, and:

a) the Official Plan Amendment, along with its schedules and maps, appended as Attachment 1, is hereby approved; and

b) The Tribunal directs the Minister of Natural Resources to issue the Class A Licence to Blueland Farms Ltd., following the issuance of the Niagara Escarpment Commission Development Permits referenced below in paragraph [67 a)], in accordance with s. 24(3)(b) of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

[67] AND THE TRIBUNAL, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE HEARING OFFICE, MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS:

a) by way of this Report and the Recommendation Letter to the Minister of Natural Resources, appended hereto as Attachment 2, the Hearing Office finds the NEC’s refusal of the Niagara Escarpment Development Permits was incorrect and should be changed. The Hearing Office recommends the Minister issue the Niagara Escarpment Development Permits subject to the Conditions appended hereto as Attachment 3;

b) by way of this Report and the Recommendation Letter to the Niagara Escarpment Commission, appended hereto as Attachment 4, the Hearing Office recommends that the Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment and its related schedules and modifications, appended hereto as Attachment 5, be accepted.

68For completeness and certainty, Attachments 1, 3 and 5 appended to this Order are consolidations of all modifications set out in the foregoing paragraphs and are the final versions of each respective instrument approved by this Tribunal and recommended by the Hearing Office.

69The Tribunal’s Final Order will be withheld until such time as the Crown advises that adequate Indigenous consultation has occurred; and

70In the event of a dispute about the adequacy of Indigenous consultation, the Tribunal may be spoken to prior to the issuance of a Final Order.

“S. Braun”

S. BRAUN VICE-CHAIR/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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 5