Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc. v. Woolwich (Township), 2025 CanLII 135385

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 22, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000550

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 38(4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc.

Subject: Appeal of decision

Description: Interim Control By-law to facilitate staging of Development Plan for unallocated greenfield residential lands within the settlement area of Breslau

Reference Number: By-law 20-2025

Property Address: Unallocated Greenfield Residential Lands

Municipality/UT: Woolwich / Waterloo

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000550

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000550

OLT Case Name: Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

Heard: November 5, 2025, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative

Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc.

John Alati Grace O’Brien

Township of Woolwich

David Neligan Eileen Costello

DECISION DELIVERED BY D. Chipman AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is a decision of the Tribunal on two Motion for Directions (“Motions”) with respect to an appeal pursuant to section 38(4) of the Planning Act (“Act”) filed by Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc. (“Cachet”) against the enactment by the Township of Woolwich (“Township”) of By-law No. 20-2025, an Interim Control By-law (“ICBL”) that prohibits development within unallocated greenfield residential lands in Breslau for a maximum of one year (unless extended by Council pursuant to section 38 of the Act). The ICBL was adopted by Council on May 27, 2025. Cachet appealed the ICBL on June 19, 2025.

2At the Case Management Conference held on October 1, 2025, the Tribunal received two requests for Party status, from:

a) Thomasfield Homes Limited (“Thomasfield”), who is interested in this appeal as the Official Plan Review, and in particular, the outcomes of the associated Breslau Staging of Development Study (“Staging Study”) will directly impact the future development of the Thomasfield lands within the study area.

b) Madwest Breslau Limited and Woolwich South Holdings Limited (collectively “Madison”), who supports the ICBL. Its interest in this appeal is based on growth management and servicing capacity allocations in the Township having already been approved for residential redevelopment (for which the Township has already allocated servicing capacity). Madison is also currently engaged with the Township regarding the ongoing proposed Staging Study.

3The Tribunal refrained from addressing the Party status requests at the first CMC and scheduled a Motion hearing instead. The written Motions and responses were filed according to the schedule set by the Tribunal and in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”).

ISSUES RAISED BY THE MOTIONS

a) Should Thomasfield and Madison be added as Parties to this proceeding?

b) If they are added, should they be added as non-Appellant Parties, having to shelter under the Appellant’s Issues?

4For the reasons set out below the Tribunal grants Thomasfield and Madison Party status but on the limited basis that the issues for the hearing would be strictly restricted to the appeal of the ICBL and not on any interest in any current or potential appeals made by Cachet regarding site specific applications.

Background

5In 2023, the Province modified and subsequently approved an Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") initiated by the Region of Waterloo (the "Region") to expand various settlement area boundaries in the Township, including in Breslau. This expansion resulted in a quadrupling of the total Breslau Settlement Area to 2511 hectares and as a result the Township identified the need to revisit the Breslau annual growth rate and plan for new and upgraded infrastructure to develop the lands.

6The Township is responsible for the drafting associated policies for the Breslau Settlement area to be incorporated into the proposed new Township OP. In order to efficiently phase and stage the growth Council of the Township of Woolwich deemed it necessary to enact a ICBL to provide the Township the time to complete a study of the Staging of Development for greenfield residential land in Breslau without allocated services to:

1. determine the logical progression and sequential order to develop the greenfield area in a way that is efficient and cost effective;

2. develop a long-term servicing plan with timing and costs of infrastructure required to service lands within the Settlement area; and

3. plan for community services, facilities and programing to support the new and existing development in Breslau.

7The Tribunal relied on the following sworn Affidavit and written submissions in its findings:

1. Thomasfield Homes Limited – Motion Record

2. Madwest Breslau Limited et al, – Motion Record, Book of Authorities and Factum

3. Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc – Response to Motion and Book of Authorities

4. Township of Woolwich – Response to Motion for Party Request

5. Thomasfield Homes Limited – Reply to Motion Record

6. Madwest Breslau Limited et al. – Reply to Response Motion Record

7. Cachet (Victoria) Inc – Supplementary submissions

8. Thomasfield Homes Limited – Supplemental Submissions

9. Township of Woolwich – Supplemental Submissions

THOMASFIELD MOTION

1. An Order of the Tribunal adding Thomasfield as a Party to the proceedings with respect to the appeal by Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc. (“Cachet”) of Township of Woolwich (the “Township’) Interim Control By-law No. 20-2025 (the “ICBL”) pursuant to section 8.2 of the Rules; and

2. Such further and other relief as counsel for the moving Party may request and as the Tribunal may permit.

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

THE MOTION IS FOR:

8As outlined below, Thomasfield’s request for Party status considered the following:

• Thomasfield has a demonstrate and compelling interest in the outcome of the Cachet appeal;

• Granting Party status to Thomasfield would serve the public interest in a full and fair hearing;

• Thomasfield could be prejudiced by not being involved in the hearing on the Cachet Appeal, with respect to potential evidence regarding the adequacy of the servicing strategy proposed by the Cachet Applications;

• The granting of Party status to Thomasfield would not initiate or create a new appeal and will not introduce subject matter or issues that are not already included under the Cachet Appeal or otherwise unduly prolong the hearing;

• The Thomasfield request for Party status will allow for the Tribunal to receive focused land use planning and engineering evidence not otherwise available to the Tribunal that is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the Cachet Appeal.

9Thomasfield proffered that there was no opportunity for a potential Party to a hearing to make written or oral submissions to Council in advance of Council’s decision on an ICBL. In this case, Thomasfield received no notice of Council’s intention to pass the ICBL prior to Council’s decision.

MADISON MOTION

THE MOTION IS FOR:

1. A Decision and Order of the Tribunal granting Party status to Madwest Breslau Limited and Woolwich South Holdings Limited;

2. A Decision and Order determining that Rule 8.3 of the OLT Rules would not apply to Madison, should the Tribunal grant them Party status;

3. Such further or other relief as counsel may request and the Tribunal may permit.

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

10Madison has already obtained development approvals for its lands in Breslau and Township Council has already allocated servicing capacity to Madison to facilitate the redevelopment of its lands for residential purposes.

11Madison has a indicated its direct interest in the ICBL is to ensure that the Tribunal has the best evidence regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Madison lands with its associated servicing requirements. Madison wants to ensure that the Cachet appeal will not negatively impact the current and future servicing allocation Township Council granted to Madison in 2023.

RESPONSE FROM THE APPELLANT

12Cachet is the single appellant in the appeal of the ICBL. Cachet filed the appeal of the ICBL which if enacted will prohibit development within unallocated greenfield residential lands in Breslau for a maximum of one year (unless extended by Council pursuant to section 38 of the Act). Cachet appeal is requesting that the Tribunal make an Order to refuse the ICBL.

13Cachet believes that Thomasfield and Madison’s interests are site-specific and not an ICBL appeal but instead to ensure that Cachet does not obtain servicing allocation in advance of their respective developments. Cachet believes this is a collateral interest and not a direct interest, and that the ICBL appeal is not an appropriate forum to raise these concerns.

TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH POSITION

14The Township consented to the requests for Party status at the CMC of October 1, 2025, but, as the Appellant and Thomasfield and Madison all agreed to proceed by way of Motion, the Township agreed.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

15Rule 8.2 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Tribunal Rules”) establishes the tests to be applied by the Tribunal in considering a request for Party status. Rule 8.2 states:

8.2 Power of Tribunal to Add or Substitute a Party

The Tribunal may add a party to a proceeding when that person satisfies applicable legislative tests necessary to be a party and the Tribunal has reasonable grounds to do so, provided that the person’s presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely.

16Section 8.2 implies a three-part test in determining a request for Party status:

1. Whether all applicable legislative tests necessary for party status have been met;

2. Whether there are reasonable grounds to add the party to the proceeding; and

3. Whether the presence of the person seeking party status is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely.

17The Act does not specifically establish any legislative tests necessary for persons seeking appellant or Party status for appeals of ICBLs initiated pursuant to section 38(4) of the Act. Section 38(3) of the Act specifically states that “No notice or hearing is required prior to the passing of” an interim control by-law.

18Section 38(5) of the Act, states that for an appeal filed under subsection 38(5) “subsections 34(23) to 26) apply with necessary modifications to the appeal.”

19Subsections 34(24.1) and 34 (24.2) establish a statutory test for Party status with respect to appeals of decisions made under section 34 of the Act. The statutory test in subsections 34(24.1) states that only “A person or public body who satisfies one of the conditions set out in subsection 34 (24.2)” may be added as a Party.

20The two conditions in subsection 34(24.2) are as follows:

1. Before the by-law was passed, the person or public body made oral submissions at a public meeting or written submissions to the council.

2. The Tribunal is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to add the person or public body as a party.

21As stated in subsection 34(24.1), only one of the two conditions must be met in order to meet the test.

Analysis and Findings

22The primary role of the Tribunal is to ensure a fair and just hearing. To ensure this, it must be emphasized that the basis for the Motions before the Tribunal at this stage is not to make a decision on the outcome of the Appeal but to examine the Motions submitted for Party status by Thomasfield and Madison to understand what assistance to the Tribunal they would bring at the merit hearing.

23What is not the focus of this Decision are the arguments that would be presented or the position they will be taking. The Tribunal will have the opportunity through the merit hearing to provide their analysis as to the validity and necessity of the ICBL under the Act as outlined in the appeal. At this juncture arguments on why the Requestors should or shouldn’t be conferred Party status should not delve into ongoing planning work, developer site specific applications, or servicing allocations as they are not required at this time and should be left for the merit hearing.

24As for the matter at hand, the Tribunal must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to add the Requestors to the ICBL Appeal and that the Requestors’ presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate whether the ICBL is valid and necessary.

25In support of the assertion that there are reasonable grounds to add Thomasfield and Madison as Parties, the Tribunal was referred to the “obvious factors” set out in paragraph 13 of the decision in 1137528 Ontario Ltd. v. Oakville (Town), 2010 CarswellOnt 7078 (OMB) (“Oakville”).

26Those “obvious factors” (“Oakville Factors”) those relevant factors are as follows:

1. Prior Appeal: Has an appeal already been filed in relation to the policy which is sought to be challenged?

2. Public Interest: To what extent is the public interest advanced if party status is granted?

3. Prejudice: What prejudice, if any, would be suffered by the municipality or another party to the proceeding?

4. Direct Interest: Does the person seeking party status have a direct interest in the policy?

5. Multiplicity of Proceedings: Will granting party status avoid a multiplicity of proceedings?

6. Historical Background: What is the historical background to the policy sought to be challenged?

27As stated in paragraph 13 of Oakville, the Tribunal’s predecessor established these factors in determining whether there are reasonable grounds to add a party. Oakville also recognized that it is impossible to articulate an exhaustive list and that not all factors will be relevant in every case.

Thomasfield Motion

28To assess whether or not Thomasfield should be granted Party status the Tribunal reviewed the relative factors. Thomasfield has indicated in their Motion that they would not introduce subject matter or issues that are not already included under the Cachet Appeal or that would otherwise unduly prolong the hearing.

29Thomasfield has been drawn into the appeal by virtue of having substantial land holdings in the Breslau Settlement Area and more specifically within the ICBL Subject Area and states that they would be unduly prejudiced if not granted Party status.

30Furthermore, Thomasfield stated it has funded and constructed substantial municipal infrastructure within the ICBL Subject Area including a pumping station which has the capacity to serve future growth within the Breslau Settlement Area which speaks to both a direct and public interest in the appeal.

31The Township in its submission has indicated that public consultation with developers to ensure the Staging Plan will be effective further substantiates the decision to add Thomasfield as a Party to this appeal.

Madison Motion

32The Madison’s written Motion materials state an interest in ensuring the Township’s ongoing servicing strategy accounts for Madison’s existing approvals and that the ICBL is upheld to permit sufficient time for the servicing strategy to be completed.

33It was noted that while Madison’s interests may be aligned with the Township, they are not the same as the Township’s. Both Madison and the Township seek to uphold the ICBL, but their interests are distinct.

34Madison’s express interest is to ensure the ICBL is upheld to allow the Township sufficient time to develop a long-term servicing plan with timing and costs of infrastructure required to service lands within the settlement area and to plan for community services, facilities and programing to support the new and existing development in Breslau.

35Madison states that its presence as a Party to this proceeding will assist the Tribunal in understanding the impact the ICBL will have on servicing strategies.

36It was further emphasized that adding Madison as a Party is necessary to ensure the Tribunal is furnished with evidence required to understand servicing demands, constraints and solutions within the Breslau settlement area.

CONCLUSION

37First, it is clear to the Tribunal through the legislative framework that the Act does not require a municipality to give notice of its intention to enact an ICBL. As a result, it cannot be expected that one makes oral or written submissions to Council in advance of a decision to pass an ICBL.

38In this case, the Tribunal is persuaded by the written arguments and submissions of Thomasfield and Madison that they have direct interests in the outcomes of the appeal filed by Cachet against the ICBL.

39The Tribunal is persuaded that any perceived prejudice to the Appellant in terms of added time and expense caused by adding Thomasfield and Madison as Parties is outweighed by the potential prejudice to Thomasfield and Madison if they were not afforded an opportunity to represent their interests on the ICBL at the hearing.

40As aptly put by Counsel to Madison, the Act appeals are not a lis between Parties, but rather a process by which the Tribunal is asked to make the best decision in the public interest. This is not “Cachet’s appeal”, but rather a public planning process that Cachet has initiated by filing an appeal of the Township’s decision to enact the ICBL.

41The Tribunal finds that it is in the public interest to adjudicate based on fulsome evidence, which includes any evidence proffered by Thomasfield and Madison as land holders in the area covered in the ICBL.

42For the reasons above, the Tribunal determines that the request for granting Party status to Thomasfield and Madison is hereby granted.

ORDER

43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Motions made by Thomasfield Homes Limited and Madwest Breslau Limited and Woolwich South Holdings Limited are granted.

44THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT Thomasfield Homes Limited and Madwest Breslau Limited and Woolwich South Holdings Limited are granted Party status in the appealed filed by Cachet Homes (Victoria) Inc. on the limited basis that the issues for the merit hearing are to be strictly restricted to the appeal of the enacted ICBL and not to any interest in any potential appeals made by Cachet regarding site specific applications.

“D. Chipman”

D. CHIPMAN

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.