Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 29, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000069
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Sifton Properties Limited
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description: Appealing OPA 14
Reference Number: 39-SC-OPA14
Property Address: Municipality Wide (Municipality Wide)
Municipality/UT: Strathroy-Caradoc/Middlesex
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000069
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000069
OLT Case Name: Sifton Properties Limited v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Municipality)
Heard: December 4, 2025, by Video-Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Sifton Properties Limited | Matthew Helfand Peter Van Loan |
| The Corporation of the County of Middlesex | Alex Ciccone |
| The Corporation of the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc | Alex Ciccone and David Samuels |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. EISAZADEH ON DECEMBER 4, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order/Decision
INTRODUCTION
1This matter relates to an appeal (“Sifton Appeal”) pursuant to s.17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), brought by Sifton Properties Limited (“Appellant”) against the passing of an Official Plan Amendment No. 14 (“OPA-14”) by the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc (“Municipality”), and the County of Middlesex (“County”).
2A 10-day Merit Hearing was scheduled to proceed on November 24, 2025. Through cooperative efforts between the Parties, the nature of the Appellant’s appeal against OPA-14 has been scoped. The Parties therefore jointly requested an adjournment of the Merit Hearing, sine die, so that they may continue to pursue resolution discussions. The adjournment of the Merit Hearing was granted, and the present Hearing was scheduled to hear the evidence and submissions in respect of a joint Motion brought by the County and Municipality pursuant to s.17(50) of the Act for an Order approving the portions of OPA-14 that are no longer contentious, and to bring same into full force and effect as of the date of the issuance of this Order (“Scoping Motion”). The Parties have since also come to an agreement as to the content of this Scoping Motion, which is now on Consent.
BACKGROUND
3On November 23, 2022, the Municipality approved OPA-14 to replace its existing Official Plan (“OP”) in its entirety. On December 12, 2023, OPA-14 was approved by the Country, with modifications.
4Following its passing, only one appeal of OPA-14 was filed with the Municipality, being the underlying appeal by the Appellant in this matter. A first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held on April 17, 2024. There have been no specified persons, public bodies, nor other registered landowners seeking Party or Participant status in these proceedings.
THE EVIDENCE AND DECISION
5The County and Municipality filed the Affidavit evidence of Matt Rodrigues, affirmed November 21, 2025 (marked Exhibit 1), the Supplementary Affidavit evidence of Timothy Williams affirmed December 3, 2025 (marked Exhibit 2), and a covering letter from Alex Ciccone to the Tribunal dated December 3, 2025 addressing a correction to the requested in-force date of those portions of OPA-14 that are no longer contentious (marked Exhibit 3).
6Mr. Rodrigues is the senior Planner employed by WSP’s Urban & Community Planning Team, the firm retained by the Municipality to update its OP, who is responsible for leading WSP’s work on OPA-14. Mr. Williams is the Manager of Planning for the County and the Municipality, who is responsible for overseeing and leading the planning functions for the Municipality and assisting in County planning matters, including oversight of the work done by Mr. Rodrigues and WSP. Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Williams are both accepted by the Tribunal as registered professional Planners, duly qualified to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
7The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence provided by Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Williams, and in particular, that:
I. OPA-14 was adopted within the second phase of a three-phased comprehensive review of the Municipality’s existing OP which commenced in October of 2020.
i. The first phase regarded a scoped settlement area review to address housekeeping matters which was completed in November 2021, resulting in the approval of OPA-13.
ii. The second phase concerned OP review and master plan implementation, resulting in OPA-14.
iii. The third phase involves comprehensive settlement area boundary review, which remains underway.
II. OPA-14 includes key policy changes as a result of master plans and studies, along with other updates to ensure the OP conforms with the Provincial policies, legislation, and the County’s OP to reflect current land use policies and the changing community needs for the next 25 years. The key changes regard, inter alia, the natural heritage system, natural hazard policies, land use designations, built form, transportation, trails and servicing policies, and special policy areas. As a whole, OPA-14 represents an updated, less repetitive, and more permissive plan than the current OP in force.
III. The Appellant has agreed to scope its appeal of the OPA-14 policies on a Municipal-wide basis to those set out in Attachment 2, and the portions of the OPA-14 schedules that are under appeal on an area-specific basis as set out in Attachment 3.
IV. The Municipality is currently faced with a number of applications under the Act, that would not be required if those portions of OPA-14 that are no longer contentious were brought into force.
V. Allowing those portions of OPA-14 that are no longer contentious to be brought into force on a Municipal-wide basis represents good planning that is in the public interest for reasons including:
i. It will reduce unnecessary and ongoing site-specific OPA applications which result in the expenditure of undue time and resources;
ii. It will address the Provincial goal for the provision of much needed housing on a more expedited basis by lowering application barriers to the development community and reducing unnecessary Municipal application reviews;
iii. It will allow the Municipality to more efficiently continue its final phase of its OP review process regarding settlement boundary area expansions;
iv. It will provide clarity and certainty to the planning regime;
v. It will allow viable development applications to proceed;
vi. It will promote orderly planning in the Town while preserving the rights of the Appellant to have its appeals determined by the Tribunal;
vii. It appropriately scopes the appeals to the policies, areas and properties in which the Appellant has a direct interest and will not prejudice the Appellant;
viii. There are no other appeals with respect to OPA-14 that would be impacted by the relief being requested, other than the Appellant’s which are maintained through Attachments 2 and 3; and,
VI. Save for those policies and schedules which remain under appeal by way of Attachments 2 and 3, the balance of the non-contentious portions of OPA-14 have appropriate regard for the Act including the matters of provincial interest under s.2 of the Act, are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 in effect at the time initially approved by the Municipality and County, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”) in effect today, conform with the County OP, and represent good planning in the public interest for reasons which include, inter alia:
i. The Land Use Designations policies have been reviewed which now reflect:
a) A new mixed-use corridor designation within the Municipality to allow for more mixed-use commercial and residential development along two key corridors serving as gateways and transition areas into Downtown;
b) Revisions to the commercial designation to implement findings of the Regional Commercial Systems Study;
c) A new village commercial designation within the core area of Mount Brydges to, inter alia, recognize the unique function of the core area;
d) The introduction of a new framework for on-farm diversified uses within the agricultural designation to support the viability of the principal agricultural operation on a lot;
e) Revisions to the permitted uses within the urban employment designation to reflect evolving industry and to implement the recommendations of the Employment Lands Study;
ii. A review of all Special Policy Areas (“SPAs”) and Special Study Areas (“SSAs”) to ensure alignment with revised terminology, to consolidate recent Council approved SPAs, to revise SSAs to remove requirements for Secondary Plans where development has taken place, and to add new SPAs to key areas for further policy guidance;
iii. Updates to the natural environment and climate change policies to recognize the threat of climate change through added policies recognizing the importance of clean air and encouraging urban forestry, renewable energy, electric vehicle charging, and the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions;
iv. The introduction of policies authorizing the Municipality to delegate authority to pass by-laws to remove a holding symbol, pass a temporary use by-law, and to make housekeeping or clerical changes to the zoning by-law pursuant to Bill 13, Supporting People and Businesses Act, 2021;
v. Updated transportation policies to reflect and promote multi-modal transportation needs including walking, rolling, cycling, and private vehicles with new policies to, inter alia, implement the Municipality’s Transportation Master Plan and Recreational Trails Master Plan;
vi. Housekeeping and organizational changes in order to make the plan more readable and to address non-substantive issues unrelated to policy.
VII. The Municipality is currently undertaking a process to further update its OP to implement the more permissive policies in the PPS 2024 as compared to the PPS 2020 in force at the time OPA 14 was first approved by the Municipality and County.
8In sum and based on the uncontested opinions of Mr. Rodrigues and Mr. Williams, as well as the submissions of all Counsel for the respective Parties, the Tribunal finds that save and except for those policies and schedules which remain under appeal by way of Attachments 2 and 3, the balance of the non-contentious provisions of OPA-14 satisfy all required statutory tests, represent good planning, and are in the public interest.
9For clarity, the Municipal wide-provisions as set out in Attachment 2, and the area-specific portions of the OPA-14 schedules as set out in Attachment 3, remain subject to appeal and are not in force.
NEXT EVENT AND DETAILS
10At the request of the Parties, a second CMC has been scheduled to update the Tribunal on the status of this matter, to address any issues arising from further resolution discussions in which the Parties remain engaged including to further narrow the issues, if possible, and for the purposes of scheduling Hearing dates should one remain required.
11Should the Parties be in a position to schedule Hearing dates at the next CMC, a revised Procedural Order with updated Issues List and deliverable deadlines is to be filed by March 17, 2026.
12The second CMC will be held by video-conference on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
13The Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the hearing by video at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293;
Access Code: 656-004-293
14Parties 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.
15Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: 647-497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 656-004-293
16Individuals 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 hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
INTERIM ORDER
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:
I. The policies and schedules of OPA 14 to the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc Official Plan as approved with modifications by the County of Middlesex on December 12, 2023, and as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, is deemed to have come into full force and effect as of the date of this Order save and except for:
i. The policies remaining under appeal on a Municipal-wide basis as set out in Attachment 2 to this Decision and Interim Order; and
ii. The portion of the schedules remaining under appeal on an area-specific basis as set out in Attachment 3 to this Decision and Interim Order.
II. The partial approval and coming into force of OPA 14, as well as the scoping of the Sifton Appeal, shall be strictly without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of limiting:
i. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, deletions or additions to the unapproved portions of OPA 14 on a general, area-specific, or site-specific basis, including issuing future Orders respecting the unapproved portions of OPA 14 which are inconsistent with the Order resulting from the Tribunal as a result of this decision;
ii. The Municipality/County’s right to assert that the approved portions of OPA 14 may be applied to the specific sites without modification on the basis that they constitute good planning.
III. A second CMC will be held on Tuesday, March 31, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
IV. There will be no further notice.
V. This member is not seized but remains available through the Case Coordinator should the need arise.
“N. Eisazadeh”
N. EISAZADEH
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3