Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 20, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000990

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Galibier Materials Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the expansion of the existing mineral aggregate operation (Lewis Pit)

Reference Number: OP-2022-002

Property Address: Lot 15 Concession 9 Vespra

Municipality/UT: Township of Springwater/ Simcoe County

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000990

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000990

OLT Case Name: Galibier Materials Inc. v. Springwater (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Galibier Materials Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the expansion of the existing mineral aggregate operation (Lewis Pit)

Reference Number: ZB-2022-016

Property Address: Lot 15 Concession 9 Vespra

Municipality/UT: Township of Springwater/ Simcoe County

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000991

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000990

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8.

Referred by: Galibier Materials Inc.

Objector: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Objector: Esther Allen and David Maginn

Objector: June Hunter

Objector: Guillaume Gagnon

Objector: Mike and Monika Hurst

Objector: Rod and Jean Rumble

Objector: Sue and Jurij Rosil

Objector: Susan Gariepy

Subject: Application for Referral Of Objections

Description: Gravel Pit Expansion

Reference Number: 626566

Property Address: Lewis Pit Part Lot 15, Concession 9

Municipality/UT: Town of Springwater/ Simcoe County

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000873

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000990

Heard: January 30, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Galibier Materials Inc.

Marc Kemerer

Township of Springwater

Bruce Engell

Springwater Green Community Coalition Inc.

David Donnelly

Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

Zachary D’Onofrio Sarah Dalton

Esther Allen & David Maginn

David Donnelly

Susan Gariepy

David Donnelly

Sue & Juril Rosil

David Donnelly

Rod & Jean Rumble

David Donnelly

Guillaume Gagnon

David Donnelly

Council of Chiefs

David Donnelly

June Hunter

Self-Represented* (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON JANUARY 30, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This Decision and Order arises out of a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in relation to applications filed by Galibier Materials Inc. (“Appellant”) proposing to expand an existing mineral aggregate operation (“Lewis Pit”) located on the Appellant’s property, legally described as West Part of Lot 15, Concession 9, in the former Township of Vespra, now the Township of Springwater (“Township”).

2The history of this matter was set out in the previous decision of the Tribunal issued on September 25, 2024 (“prior decision”) and need not be reiterated in this Decision, but for a reminder that the following matters were consolidated pursuant to the Tribunal’s Order set out in the prior decision:

a. Appeal against the failure of the Township to render a decision within the statutory timeframe of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”) with respect to an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act (Tribunal File No. OLT-23-000990);

b. Appeal against the failure of the Township to render a decision within the statutory timeframe of the Planning Act with respect to an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (Tribunal File No. OLT-23-000991); and,

c. Referral of an application and objections pursuant to s. 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8, as amended (“ARA”) by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“MNRF”) relating to an application by the Appellant for a Class A Pit Above Water Licence (Tribunal File No. OLT-24-000873).

3On December 6, 2024, the Tribunal was advised that MNRF would attend the CMC with the intent to withdraw from the proceedings. Following MNRF’s circulation of the intent to withdraw letter, the Chiefs of Ontario (“COO”) filed a Motion for Party Status (“Motion”) to be heard at the CMC. Counsel for MNRF attended the CMC and advised that MNRF would wait until the Motion was heard and decided by the Tribunal before confirming whether it would withdraw from the proceedings. Given the Tribunal’s ruling on the Motion set out below, MNRF elected to remain a Party to the proceedings.

4At the previous CMC, the Tribunal was advised that the COO may wish to seek Party status and the Tribunal directed in its prior decision that if COO or any other person or entity wished to seek status in the proceedings, the requests would be determined by way of a Motion brought at the commencement of this CMC. In advance of the CMC, COO brought the Motion which was heard and considered prior to the start of the CMC.

MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS

5The history of COO’s involvement in the proceedings is set out in detail in the prior decision. COO brought a Motion in advance of this CMC requesting an Order of the Tribunal, adding COO as a non-appellant Party to the proceedings and an abridgement of time for service of the Motion, which was served one day late.

6The Appellant opposed the Motion and requested that the Tribunal dismiss the Motion and order costs on a substantial indemnity bases related to responding to the Motion.

7The Township did not take a position on the Motion. MNRF did not file any materials nor make any submissions on the Motion but was supportive of the Appellant’s position. Springwater Green Community Coalition Inc. (“SGCC”), the Maginns, Rosils, Rumbles, Ms. Gariepy and Mr. Gagnon were all supportive of COO’s position on the Motion.

8The materials before the Tribunal on the Motion were as follows:

• Exhibit 1A: Chiefs of Ontario Motion Record;

• Exhibit 1B: Affidavit of Service for the Motion Record;

• Exhibit 2A: Galibier Materials Inc. Response to Motion;

• Exhibit 2B: Affidavit of Service for the Response to Motion;

• Exhibit 3: Chiefs of Ontario Reply.

9Following careful consideration of the written materials and oral arguments presented, COO’s primary requests for relief are granted. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal abridged time for service of the Motion and finds that procedural fairness and a balancing of prejudice favours adding COO as a Party to the proceedings.

10The Tribunal considered COO’s requested abridgment of time for service of the Motion and the Appellant’s request to strike 10 paragraphs from the Motion materials as preliminary matters prior to hearing submissions on the Motion.

Preliminary Rulings on the Motion

Abridging Time for Service of the Notice of Motion

11It was submitted by Counsel for COO that the Tribunal customarily grants abridgments of time for service and an abridgement of one day is trivial. Counsel for COO explained that the late filing was due to a combination of the complexity of the proceedings, Counsel’s busy schedule, and the holiday period. In support of COO’s submission that there was no prejudice to any Party in abridging time for service, the Tribunal was referred to 2564669 Ontario Inc. and 520039 Ontario Limited v. Otonabee (Township), 2024 CanLII 79164 (ON LT) (“Otonabee”) wherein the Tribunal found that the Parties were aware of the Motion and were unable to make compelling arguments establishing any prejudice resulting from the delay. Similar to the case in Otonabee, COO argued that no allegation was made by the Appellant in its responding materials establishing prejudice resulting from the one-day delay of service. The absence of prejudice was due to all Parties being aware for several months of the potential that COO would bring a Motion for Party Status.

12The Appellant submitted that it did not expect the Motion from COO as it had been five months since the Tribunal’s ruling in the prior decision directing that any Motion for Party Status be brought well in advance of the CMC. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that they did not have an issue with the one-day abridgment, but they disagreed with COO’s submission that the Parties were aware of the Motion as it was not filed in advance as directed by the Tribunal.

13The Tribunal granted the requested relief to abridge time for service by one day for the Notice of Motion. However, the Tribunal noted that COO had plenty of time to serve the materials well in advance and this was specifically directed by the Tribunal in the prior decision. Despite granting the one-day abridgment of time for service, the Tribunal disagreed with Counsel for COO’s argument that a one-day abridgment is “trivial”. Timelines and deadlines are set in Tribunal proceedings to ensure an efficient process and provide all Parties, including the Tribunal, with ample opportunity to be well prepared. The Tribunal noted that late filing of documents has been a common practice by all Parties in these proceedings. The Tribunal issued a warning to all Parties that continued late filing of documents may result in such documents not being accepted nor considered by the Tribunal.

Striking Paragraphs in the Notice of Motion

14While not listed as a point of requested relief in the Appellant’s responding materials, the Appellant requested that the Tribunal strike 10 paragraphs from COO’s Notice of Motion materials alleging that they were incorrect and/or not supported by affidavit evidence. Counsel for the Appellant argued that allowing the paragraphs to be considered by the Tribunal would be prejudicial to the Parties.

15Counsel for COO argued that the paragraphs were appropriately included in the materials and were either common knowledge or supported by the affidavit evidence attached to the Notice of Motion materials sworn by Allan Ramsay, Esther Allan and/or Chief Benedict.

16The Tribunal denied the Appellant’s request to strike 10 paragraphs in the Notice of Motion. The Tribunal was persuaded by COO’s argument that the paragraphs were either factual or were supported by affidavit evidence. Further, s. 15 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 allows the Tribunal to admit that which is relevant to the proceedings and the Tribunal found that the paragraphs fall into such a category. Further, the Tribunal is capable of distilling the information relevant to the Motion from the content which is not relevant.

Motion for Party Status

17Counsel for COO submitted that Rule 10.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) require a response to a motion to include evidence in the form of an affidavit, and the Appellant failed to comply with the Rule. Further, the primary role of the Tribunal is to ensure a fair and just hearing, and the Appellant has not raised any evidence that COO is not affected by the applications and referral.

18In terms of the grounds for party status, Counsel for COO referred the Tribunal to the “obvious factors” set out in Oakville (Town), Re, 2010 Carswell Ont 7078, 66 O.M.B.R. 366 (“Oakville factors”) and argued as follows:

a. Prior Appeal: The appeal is the first test of the application before the Tribunal, and it would be efficient and in the public interest to add COO as a Party.

b. Public Interest: COO expressed interest in taking part in the proceedings in July 2024, and it has been active in its opposition since the applications were filed with the Township. The inclusion of COO as a Party would allow First Nations to be included in the hearing process.

c. Prejudice: The Tribunal was assured that the inclusion of COO as a Party would not add additional days to the hearing as COO would adopt the Issues List of SGCC and potentially seek to include one additional issue. There would be no duplication of evidence or experts and as such, no prejudice to the Appellant or the Township in granting the Motion, but rather there would be severe prejudice to COO if it was denied party status.

d. Direct Interest: Only First Nations can represent their own interests and there are archeological sites present which are direct Indigenous interests.

e. Multiplicity of Proceedings: It was submitted that this was not directly relevant.

f. Historical Background: Counsel noted reasons similar to b) above. Further, COO submitted that it has shown an interest in the proceedings by working with SGCC and hiring Counsel and a land use planner to represent its interests.

19Counsel for the Appellant argued that, as required under Rule 8.1 of the Rules, there was no evidence presented demonstrating that COO would assist the Tribunal in reaching a decision as COO does not have a direct interest as it is an umbrella organization. There was no evidence setting out which First Nations are the appropriate ones to be consulted. Further, no evidence was presented to the Tribunal to demonstrate that COO represents the interests of those appropriate First Nations communities. The Appellant submitted that the addition of COO as a Party to the proceedings would add unnecessary delay as extensive consultation with First Nations communities had already been undertaken and the relevant First Nations communities had “signed off”.

20Counsel for the Appellant also reviewed the Oakville factors and argued as follows:

a. Prior Appeal: Allowing COO Party status would result in great prejudice to the Appellant by adding issues which would result in additional time and expense to be incurred by all Parties.

b. Public Interest: Public interest would not be served in granting the Motion as COO is an umbrella organization which is not directly affected by the proceedings. COO will not add anything to the proceedings which would not already be covered during the normal course of the appeal.

c. Prejudice: The Appellant will suffer prejudice if COO were added as a Party as it will create uncertainty when an Issues List had already been established. The result will be additional time and expense for the Tribunal and the Parties. It was submitted that the objective of the party status request was to create further delay.

d. Direct Interest: COO have not presented any evidence that it has engaged in any consultation with the relevant First Nations who are the ones with a direct interest.

e. Multiplicity of Proceedings: The Appellant anticipated further requests for adjournments in the proceedings to be requested if COO was granted party status and the proceedings have already had too many delays.

f. Historical Background: COO did not take part in the proceedings until late in the process. It was argued that COO had time to bring an application on the Constitutional Question and engage with relevant First Nations communities, both of which they have failed to do.

Findings on the Motion for Party Status

21Although the Tribunal heard some evidence with respect to the one issue that COO wished to include on the Issues List, the sole issue to be determined on the Motion is whether COO should be added as a non-appellant Party to the proceedings and, in view of the Tribunal, the determination turns on prejudice.

22The Tribunal does not accept the Appellant’s argument that COO will add nothing to the proceedings that won’t already be covered by the Parties. Given the facts of this case, the Tribunal finds that it is in the public interest to adjudicate the issues in front of it based on fulsome evidence, which includes evidence provided by COO. The Tribunal finds that it would be prejudicial to COO and First Nations communities if they were not afforded an opportunity to represent the interests of First Nations communities at the hearing.

23The Tribunal was not presented with any persuasive evidence demonstrating that the addition of COO as a Party would result in a prolonged hearing process. In fact, COO submitted that it would adopt the Issues List of SGCC, which was already agreed upon by the Parties, and potentially add one additional issue relating to consultation during the archeological assessment. Further, the Appellant’s “anticipation” of further adjournment requests if COO were added as a Party was not persuasive. There was no evidence that further adjournment requests would be the result of granting the party status request of COO and the Tribunal will not make a determination based on apprehensions.

24The Tribunal was persuaded that any perceived prejudice to the Appellant in terms of added time and expense caused by adding COO as a Party was outweighed by the potential prejudice to COO if it were not afforded an opportunity to represent the interests of First Nations at the hearing.

25In terms of the issue which COO wished to add to the Issues List, the Tribunal declined to make a ruling as it would be more appropriate for the Parties to discuss adding COO’s issue during the CMC. Further, the Tribunal did not consider the Appellant’s request for costs to respond to the Motion and refers the Appellant to Rule 23 of the Rules if it wishes to pursue its request.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Status

26At the prior CMC held on September 12, 2024, the Tribunal directed all Objectors, or their representatives, to attend the CMC prepared to address how they intend to participate in the proceedings. Mr. Donnelly advised that following the last CMC, Mr. Gagnon retained Mr. Donnelly to represent his interests. He further advised that Mike and Monika Hurst had re-located and were no longer involved in the proceedings. Mr. Donnelly also advised the Tribunal that unfortunately, Mr. Hunter passed away and can be removed from the list of Objectors/Parties. In order to clarify each Party and their representative, on or before Thursday February 6, 2025, the Tribunal directed Mr. Donnelly to circulate a list of all persons and entities that he is representing in the proceedings. On Wednesday February 12, 2025, the Tribunal received the requested list from Mr. Donnelly.

27Mr. Donnelly suggested that he would bring a motion to include all of the Objectors that he is representing under the SGCC umbrella. After discussing with all Counsel and confirming that there was no opposition to having the Objectors included under the SGCC umbrella, it was determined that the cost and time of a motion was unnecessary. Once Mr. Donnelly has confirmed with the Objectors that he represents that they agree to be in a class with SGCC, he will circulate a letter to the Tribunal and the Parties requesting that the Tribunal order that the Objectors be included in a class with SGCC.

Settlement Opportunities

28The Appellant re-iterated its position that it was open to discussing the possibility of mediation or settlement with the Parties when the opportunity arises, and Mr. Donnelly agreed on behalf of his clients. Counsel for the Township submitted that once the required technical work had been completed, the Township would be in a better position to determine whether settlement or mediation was a possibility.

Procedural Order and Issues List

29In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal was provided with a revised draft Procedural Order which the Tribunal was advised included an agreed upon Issues List. The Tribunal reviewed the Procedural Order and did not have any comments or revisions for the Parties.

30The discussion proceeded to focus on COO’s requested addition to the Issues List. As noted above, COO wished to add one issue to the Issues List, which was contested by MNRF and the Appellant. The disputed issue was as follows:

“Were the appropriate First Nations consulted during the Stage III Archaeological Assessment.”

31Counsel for MNRF raised concerns with adding the issue noting that MNRF refers applications and objections to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 11(5) of the ARA and this issue was not included in the referral from the Minister to the Tribunal and is therefore not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider. MNRF submitted that pursuant to s. 3.1 of the ARA, the Ministry considers whether adequate consultation has occurred and the duty to consult was not raised as an objection and was not referred to the Tribunal.

32Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the issue was too broad and if the Tribunal allowed the addition of the issue, it should be scoped to identify who the appropriate First Nations are.

33Counsel for COO submitted that the issue was set out in the Motion and MNRF did not take part in the Motion, so the Tribunal should not entertain MNRF’s objection. It was further argued that COO is not an Objector, rather it is now a Party to the proceedings, which have been consolidated, and COO wishes to raise the issue to look at whether the applications represent good planning.

34The Tribunal considered the submissions and arguments of Counsel and determined that COO’s issue would be included in the Issues List but would be scoped to list the appropriate First Nations communities. The Tribunal agreed with MNRF that with respect to ARA referrals, the Tribunal is limited to considering only those objections that have been referred to it. However, in this case, the OPA, ZBA, and ARA matters have been consolidated. The absence of an objection relating to the duty to consult does not mean that proper consultation cannot be put to the Tribunal in ensuring that the applications represent good planning. The Tribunal agrees with the Appellant that the issue, as it is currently drafted is too broad and as such, directs COO to scope the issue to list the appropriate First Nations communities.

35The Tribunal directed the Appellant to submit a revised Procedural Order for review and approval on or before Thursday February 6, 2025. On Wednesday February 12, 2025, the Appellant submitted the revised Procedural Order attached as Schedule “A” which has been reviewed and approved by the Tribunal and will govern the proceedings.

ORDER

36THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Chiefs of Ontario are a party to the proceedings;

37THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the Procedural Order attached as Schedule “A” to this Order shall govern the proceedings.

38The case management directives set out above are so ordered.

39The Member is not seized, however, will remain available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.

40No further notice will be given.

“C. Hardy”

c. hardy

VICE CHAIR

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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 A

Ontario Land Tribunal

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Galibier Materials Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the expansion of the existing mineral aggregate operation (Lewis Pit)

Reference Number: OP-2022-002

Property Address: Lot 15 Concession 9 Vespra

Municipality/UT: Township of Springwater/ Simcoe County

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000990

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000990

OLT Case Name: Galibier Materials Inc. v. Springwater (Township)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Galibier Materials Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the expansion of the existing mineral aggregate operation (Lewis Pit)

Reference Number: ZB-2022-016

Property Address: Lot 15 Concession 9 Vespra

Municipality/UT: Township of Springwater/ Simcoe County

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000991

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000990

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 11(5) of the Aggregate Resources Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.8, as amended

Applicant: Galibier Materials Inc.

Subject: Application for Referral of Objections

Description: Gravel Pit Expansion

Description: 626566

Reference Property Address: Lewis Pit Part Lot 15 Concession 9 Vespra

Municipality/UT: Township of Springwater/ Simcoe County

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000873

OLT Case Name: Galibier Materials Inc. v. Springwater (Township)

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 Monday 15 September 2025 at 10:00 a.m. at the following link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885. Unless otherwise subsequently ordered by the Tribunal, the Hearing shall proceed by videoconference.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is fifteen (15) days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before 6 June 2025 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before 20 June 2025 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before 4 July 2025.

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 18 July 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before 18 July 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 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 1 August 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before 29 August 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within ten (10) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before 5 September 2025.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before 8 September 2025 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy if requested. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

23. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

MCMILLAN LLP 4400- 181 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5J 2T3

Marc Kemerer

marc.kemerer@mcmillan.ca Tel: (416) 865-7222

Lawyers for Galibier Materials Inc.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES 3420 -Wellesley Street Toronto ON M7A 1W3

Zachary D’Onofrio Zachary.d’onofrio@ontario.ca Tel: 416-919-8621

Sarah Dalton Sarah.dalton2@ontario.ca 416-432-1219

WEIRFOULDS LLP

4100- 66 Wellington Street West

Toronto, ON M5K 1B7

Bruce Engell

bengell@weirfoulds.com

Tel: (416) 947-5081

Lawyers for the Township of Springwater

DONNELLY LAW 203- 276 Carlaw Avenue Toronto ON M4M 3L1

David Donnelly david@donnellylaw.ca

Lawyer for the Springwater Green Community Coalition Inc.

DONNELLY LAW 203- 276 Carlaw Avenue Toronto ON M4M 3L1

David Donnelly david@donnellylaw.ca

Lawyer for the Chiefs of Ontario

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

1. Do the applications to amend the County of Simcoe Official Plan and Springwater Zoning By-law (the “Proposed Amendments”) have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, in particular subsections 2(a), 2(c), 2(h) and 2(o)?

2. Does the Aggregate Resources Act license application, including its Site Plan (the “Site Plan”) (the “ARA Application”), have appropriate regard for the matters set out in section 12 of the Aggregate Resources Act , in particular sections 12 (a-e), (f), (g), (h) and (i).

3. Are the Proposed Amendments consistent with the following policy sections of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024:

   1. 2.5. (Rural Areas in Municipalities);
   2. 2.6 (Rural Lands in Municipalities);
   3. 4.1 (Natural Heritage);
   4. 4.2 (Water)
   5. 4.3 (Agriculture); and
   6. 4.5 (Mineral Aggregate Resources)?

4. Do the Proposed Amendments conform with the County of Simcoe Official Plansections 3.7, 3.8, 4.4, 4.7 and 4.8?

5. Do the Proposed Amendments conform with the Township of Springwater Official Plan, in particular, sections:

• 16.1 & 16.2 Natural Heritage

• 16.2.3 Ground and Surface Water

• 16. 2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment

• 17 Agricultural Uses

• 18 & 18.4.8.1 Rural Policies

• 19 & 19.2.5, 19.2.10 Aggregate Extraction

• 26 Transportation Policies

6. Will the Proposed Amendments and the ARA Application result in any unacceptable traffic and transportation impacts? If yes, are there mitigation measures, monitoring and enforcement plans to address such impacts, including any proposed improvements to the proposed haul route, to address such impacts?

7. Is the proposed use of Seadon Road, Carson Road, Wilson Road, Snow Valley Road and George Johnson (Highway 28) and the intersection of Seadon Road and George Johnson (Highway 28) for the purpose of truck traffic related to the Proposed Amendments and the ARA Application appropriate in terms of:

   1. Safety;
   2. Impacts on road maintenance;
   3. Noise impacts; and

d. Consideration for alternative routes?

If not, are any improvements required to those roads and how and for how long will these improvements be secured?

8. With respect to potential noise impacts:

   1. Will the proposed gravel pit result in any significant unacceptable noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive uses, particularly to residents of Boothby Crescent?
   2. Are the proposed extraction limits/setbacks appropriate? If not, what extraction limits/setbacks would be appropriate?
   3. Is the proposed monitoring and mitigation adequate to ensure compliance with applicable Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Guidelines?
   4. If the answer to (c) is negative, what additional monitoring and mitigation requirements could be put in place to ensure that those Guidelines are met?
   5. Are the hours of operation proposed appropriate in the residential and rural surroundings?

9. With respect to potential air quality impacts:

   1. Will the proposed gravel pit result in any significant unacceptable air quality impacts to nearby sensitive uses, particularly the residents of Boothby Crescent?
   2. Has the existing gravel pit maintained compliance with air quality standards with respect to local residential properties, specifically Boothby Crescent?
   3. Are the proposed extraction limits/setbacks appropriate? If not, what extraction limits/setbacks would be appropriate?
   4. Is the proposed monitoring and mitigation adequate to ensure compliance with applicable MECP D Series Guidelines and standards?
   5. If the answer to (d) is negative, what additional monitoring and mitigation requirements could be put in place to ensure that MECP Guidelines and standards are met?

10. With respect to potential hydrogeological and surface water impacts:

    1. Will the proposed gravel pit operation result in any significant unacceptable hydrogeological impacts, including impacts to the local significant recharge area?
    2. Will the proposed gravel pit operation result in significant adverse impacts on water levels and water quality for the Minesing Wetlands?
    3. Will there be any adverse effects resulting from the proposed gravel pit in spring flooding downstream in the wetlands and watercourses connected to the Minesing Wetlands?
    4. Should the applications be approved, what, if any, mitigation and monitoring measures should be imposed to address hydrology and hydrogeological impacts?
    5. Does the ARA Application capture all the potentially affected drinking water wells in the residential sub-division adjacent to the site?

11. Should the Township Comprehensive Zoning By-law s. 28.3.6 setback of 150 metres be maintained from the proposed use to adjoining residential boundaries? If not, has the applicant proposed sufficient mitigation measures?

12. Do the proposed berms and setbacks adequately protect mature forest, species at risk and significant wildlife habitat, if any?

13. Was there a duty to consult with First Nations communities under the Planning Act in 2013? If yes:

    1. did this duty extend in 2013 to the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, Saugeen First Nation, Wahata Mohawks, Moose Deer Point First Nation and/or the Wasauksing First Nation in relation to the 29 November 2013 Stage III Archaeological Assessment undertaken for the subject site; and
    2. if yes, what impact, if any, does this have on the approval of the Proposed Amendments which are supported, in part, by the Aecom 22 March 2024 Stage 4 Archaeological Assessment?

14. If the Tribunal approves the Proposed Amendments and the ARA Application, what is the appropriate form of the zoning bylaw and site plans and what, if any, conditions of the Tribunal’s approvals are appropriate?

15. What conditions, in addition to those set out in the Site Plan, if any, should be imposed by the Tribunal if the Proposed Amendments and the ARA Application are approved?

16. Do the proposed Amendments and the ARA Application represent good planning, and are they in the public interest?

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Galibier Materials Inc.

2. Ministry of Natural Resources

3. Township of Springwater

4. Springwater Green Community Coalition Inc.

5. Chiefs of Ontario

6. Galibier Materials Inc. (Reply, if any)

ATTACHMENT 4

MEANING OF TERMS

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

1A Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Subsection 33.2 of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

[2]

3A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written Evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual Evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A Witness Statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An Expert Witness Statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A Participant Statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submission of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

Summons: A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the parties. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

The order of examination of witnesses: is usually:

• direct examination by the Party presenting the witness;

• direct examination by any Party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;

• cross-examination by Parties of opposite interest;

• re-direct examination by the Party presenting the witness; or

• another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 5

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL DATES

Event

Date

List of Witnesses

6 June 2025

Meeting of Like Experts

20 June 2025

Expert Witness Statements

18 July 2025

Response to Expert Witness Statements

28 July 2025

Confirmation Hearing Dates still Required

1 August 2025

Provision of Visual Evidence

29 August 2025

Joint Document Book

5 September 2025

Filing of Hearing Plan

8 September 2025

Commencement of Hearing

15 September 2025