2623841 Ontario Inc. v. Brant (County), 2025 CanLII 18363

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

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

ISSUE DATE: February 24, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001168

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

Appellant and Appellant: 2623841 Ontario Inc., and MLB Holdings Ltd. (Cedar North Developments Inc.) Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To rezone portion of the land into residential multiple low, medium and high density zones. Reference Number: ZBA34-22-WV Property Address: 184 Pinehurst Road, Paris, Ontario (Part of Lots 28 & 29, Concession 2) Municipality/UT: County of Brant OLT Case No: OLT-23-001168 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001168 OLT Case Name: 2623841 Ontario Inc v. Brant (County)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant and Appellant: 2623841 Ontario Inc., and MLB Holdings Ltd. (Cedar North Developments Inc.) Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To rezone portion of the land into residential multiple low, medium and high density zones. Reference Number: PS3-22-MV Property Address: 184 Pinehurst Road, Paris, Ontario (Part of Lots 28 & 29, Concession 2) Municipality/UT: County of Brant OLT Case No: OLT-23-001169 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-001168

BEFORE: BITA M. RAJAEE, MEMBER Monday, the 24th day of February 2025

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order set out as Attachment “A” to this Order shall be in full force and effect for the purposes of governing the required procedure leading up to and including the hearing scheduled to commence October 20th, 2025.

"Euken Lui" ACTING REGISTRAR 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.

ATTACHMENT “A”

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on October 20, 2025 (excluding November 11 and 17, when the Tribunal is not sitting), at 10:00 a.m. at:

GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/914098901

Access Code: 914-098-901

Audio-Only Telephone Line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (toll-free) 1-888-299-1889

Access Code: 914-098-901

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 20 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.

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 consent 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal, 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 June 23, 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 July 7, 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 July 17, 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 August 1, 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 August 1, 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 September 15, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before September 19, 2025.

17. On or before October 6, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator, on or before October 10, 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 October 13, 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. Hard copies will not be required unless requested by the Tribunal. 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 email shall be governed by Rule 7.

23. A Summary of Filing Dates is set out in Attachment 4.

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

25. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

So orders the Tribunal.

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1 - PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

Party Name	Contact Information
1. 2623841 Ontario Inc., and MLB Holdings Ltd. (Cedar North Developments Inc.)	Wood Bull LLP 65 Queen Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto, ON M5H 2M5 Kim Mullin / Mithea Murugesu Tel: (416) 203-5633 / 416-203-5634 E-mail: kmullin@woodbull.ca / mmurugesu@woodbull.ca
2. County of Brant	Duxbury Law 500 – 1 King Street West Hamilton, ON L8P 1A4 Brian Duxbury Tel: (905) 570-1242 E-mail: brian@duxburylaw.ca
3. Paris Grand Estates Inc.	Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Alex Lusty / Grace O’Brien Tel: (416) 263-4522 / 416-263-4507 E-mail: alexl@davieshowe.com / graceo@davieshowe.com

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.

County of Brant

Planning Policies

1. Are the applications consistent with the PPS 2024? Specifically in regard to the following policies:

• 2.1.4
• 2.1.6
• 2.2.1 (a-d)
• 2.3.1 (1-6)
• 2.9.1 (a-e)
• 3.1.1 (1-6)
• 3.5.1
• 3.6.1 (a-f)
• 3.6.8 (a-g)
• 3.9 (a-d)
• 4.1 (1-9)
• 4.2 (1-5)
• 4.6 (1-5)

2. Do the applications conform to the County of Brant Official Plan (2012)? Specifically, in regards to, the following policies:

• 1.11.2.2.2(e)
• 1.11.2.4.2(a-f)
• 1.11.2.5.2(a-g)
• 1.11.2.9.2(a-h)
• 2.2.4.3 (a-f)
• 2.3.2.1 (a, b, d, f)
• 2.3.2.2 (a, b, c, d, e, g, h, i)
• 2.3.2.3.2 (c, d, I, j, k)
• 2.3.3.1(a,e,g)
• 2.3.3.2 (a,b,h,i,j)
• 2.3.3.3 (b, c, d, j)
• 2.5.3 c) ii.
• 2.7.4.3 (a, b, c, e, g)
• 3.4.3(a)
• 3.4.4(a) – 3.4.4(e)
• 3.4.5(a) – 3.4.5(e)
• 3.4.6(a) – 3.4.6(e)
• 5.2.1(a,d,e)
• 5.2.2(a,e,h)
• 5.2.3.1 (a,b)
• 5.2.3.2(a,b,c,d,f)
• 5.2.4 (a,d,e,f,jk,l,n,o)
• 5.3.4 (g, m, o)
• 6.11 a) xii

Planning Applications

3. Have the applicable provincial interests under section 2 of the Planning Act been properly addressed?

4. Have the applicable criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act been properly addressed?

5. Should the proposed development incorporate opportunities for publicly accessible natural settings for recreation including open spaces areas, trails, linkages, and water- based resources through dedication of all or part of the natural heritage system to the County?

6. Is it good planning to approve a plan of subdivision that relies on monitoring and mitigating measures such as naturalizing buffers, which were recommended in the Environmental Impact Study (EIS), on lands that are proposed outside the boundary of the Draft Plan of Subdivision? For example, if the lands outside the boundaries of the Draft Plan of Subdivision are sold to a new owner, how will the applicant ensure that the measures are implemented including but not limited to any ongoing monitoring measures?

7. Has the draft plan incorporated daylight triangles/road widening requirements?

8. Does the draft plan incorporate recommendations of the County’s adopted Transportation Master Plan and Grand River Street Environmental Assessment?

9. Do the applications satisfy all technical requirements such that the Ontario Land Tribunal can be confident that the proposal represents development which is in the public interest and represents good planning?

10. Does the draft plan of subdivision properly illustrate and incorporate satisfactory trail connections?

11. Have the recommendations of all technical studies, reports and drawings been implemented?

12. Are the site-specific zoning provisions appropriate?

13. How should the rezoning application and draft plan of subdivision including conditions of approval implement the recommendations of the EIS and Gilbert Creek Subwatershed Study (ie. Environmental Implementation Plan, Monitoring Plan, Pre-Construction Monitoring, During Construction Monitoring, Post-Construction Monitoring, Restoration and Enhancement Area Monitoring)?

14. Does the Zoning By-Law Amendment affect the ability to provide adequate on-street parking as per the on-street parking guidelines adopted by Council on January 31, 2023?

Source Water Protection

15. The entire property is within a Wellhead Protection Area and aspects of the proposed development will become a significant drinking water threat to the Gilbert Well Field (Paris Drinking Water System). Has the Lake Erie Region Source Protection Plan been reviewed in relation to the proposed development? Have the potential threats been identified, impacts evaluated and a proposed risk mitigation plan developed in accordance with the Source Protection Plan?

Servicing

16. Does the Servicing Report consider the timing and phasing of the proposed development to ensure that it aligns with the County of Brant’s water and wastewater allocation protocol?

17. Has the Stormwater Management Report established the size and location of the SWM block to the satisfaction of the County of Brant and the associated requirements under the Source Protection Plan which includes the approval of the stormwater management infrastructure through the CLI-ECA process.

18. Have the details on how the existing external flows that flow through the easement been provided?

19. Has the proponent obtained a Legal Drainage Outlet to Gilbert Creek, in the case of discharge to privately owned land where there is no sufficient outlet?

Geotechnical & Hydrogeological Report

20. Has the potential quality and quantity impacts on the Well Head Protection Area, Gilbert Well Field, Gilbert Creek and the Provincially Significant Wetland been considered and proposed risk mitigation plans developed?

21. Has a detailed hydrogeological monitoring plan been submitted to the County for review? Has the site been assessed with at least 2 years of continuous groundwater and surface water level monitoring in accordance with Provincial Guidelines “2021 technical rules under the Clean Water Act”?

22. Has the proposed Storm Water Management Pond been thoroughly reviewed for thermal mitigation?

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

23. Does the EIS satisfy the agreed upon Terms of Reference?

24. Does the proposed development provide sufficient buffers from natural heritage features and areas such as to help ensure that there will be no negative impacts on natural heritage and hydrologic features, areas, systems and functions?

25. Did the study state how recommendations will be implemented through the planning process? Did the EIS include recommended conditions of approval to demonstrate how the recommendations in the EIS will be implemented?

26. How will the mitigation measures be implemented on lands not subject to the Draft Plan?

27. Has the evaluation of woodlands within and adjacent to the subject lands been completed in accordance with the Natural Heritage Reference Manual?

28. In accordance with the Growth Plan, does the EIS report consider existing surrounding development and evaluate impacts of any potential or proposed land uses and development and provide for protecting, improving or restoring the quality and quantity within a subwatershed (Natural Heritage Features)?

29. Does the study address how it will be updated as a result of recent amendments to applicable legislation?

30. Has the study addressed any need for updated inventories?

31. Are the Bird-Friendly Best Practices guidelines applicable? And if applicable, have those guidelines been adequately applied?

32. Have the impacts on Gilbert Creek as a receiving watercourse on temperature, water quantity and quality been fully assessed?

33. Has further information/coordination on Existing Baseline Conditions with County’s PTTW Gilbert/Paris Well and Gilbert Creek impacts update for 2023 been submitted as requested?

Natural Hazards

34. Have all of the natural hazards such as wetlands, the Regulatory Floodplain, riverine erosion hazards been accurately mapped and appropriately zoned?

35. Does the development proposal avoid all natural hazard areas to ensure public safety?

Traffic

36. Has the Terms of Reference for the Traffic Impact Study been submitted and finalized?

Paris Grand Estates Inc.

Planning Act

1. Do the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision have regard to matters of provincial interest in of the Planning Act, namely those described in s. 2(f), 2(h), and 2(p)?

2. Does the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision meet the requirements of 51(24) of the Planning Act, in particular subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (g), and (i)?

PPS 2024

3. Is the proposed development consistent with the following provisions of the PPS: 2.3.1.2 a) and b); 2.3.1.6; 3.1.1; 3.2.1; 3.6.1 d); 6.2.1 a) and d)?

2012 County OP

4. Does the proposed development conform with the following policies of the 2012 County Official Plan: 1.11.2.1.2(h); 1.11.2.2.2(e); 1.11.2.4.2(a), (b), (c), (f); 1.11.2.5.2(e); 2.2.3.1.1(h), (i); 2.7.1; 2.7.2(a)(ii), (iii); 3.4.3(a)(iv), (v); 3.4.4(d), (e); 5.1; 5.2.2(a), (b), (c); 5.2.3.2(c), (d), (f), (h); 5.3.2(h); 6.5.2; and 6.6(b)?

2023 County OP

5. Has the proposed development suitably considered the following provisions of the 2023 County Official Plan: In Part 4 – 2.0 regarding phasing, pace and scale of infrastructure and development along with servicing allocation implementation; 5.0 regarding integration of land use and infrastructure together with allocation and delivery of servicing; and 9.0, 9.1.2, 9.1.3, 9.1.7; Part 5 – 5.0, 5.1.4, and 5.7; and Part 6 – 4.3, 4.3.2, 4.3.4, 5.1.4, 5.1.7, 5.1.10, and 5.1.13.

Road Infrastructure

6. Is there sufficient current transportation capacity to accommodate the proposed development? If not, what improvements are required to the transportation system to accommodate the proposed development and when will the resultant additional capacity be available?

7. If additional transportation capacity is required to accommodate the proposed development: a. Should the proposed development be phased to allow for the coordination of the additional capacity and additional demand? b. Should conditions of draft plan approval be imposed to allow for the coordination of the additional capacity and additional demand? If so, what condition wording should be used? c. Should holding zone provisions be imposed to allow for the coordination of the additional capacity and additional demand? If so, what hold provision wording should be used?

Wastewater Infrastructure

8. Is there likely to be sufficient wastewater servicing capacity to accommodate the proposed development, considering previously approved development in Brant County? If not, what improvements are required to the wastewater servicing system to accommodate the proposed development and when will the resultant additional capacity be available?

9. If additional wastewater servicing capacity is required to accommodate the proposed development: a. Should the proposed development be phased to allow for the coordination of the additional capacity and additional demand? b. Should conditions of draft plan approval be imposed to allow for the coordination of the additional capacity and additional demand? If so, what condition wording should be used? c. Should holding zone provisions be imposed to allow for the coordination of the additional capacity and additional demand? If so, what hold provision wording should be used?

ATTACHMENT 3 - ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Cedar North Developments Inc
2. County of Brant
3. Paris Grand Estates Inc.
4. Reply by Cedar North Developments Inc

ATTACHMENT 4 – SUMMARY OF FILING DATES

Date	Event
June 23, 2025	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
July 7, 2025	Meeting of like experts
July 17, 2025	Exchange and file Agreed Statement of Facts (if any)
August 1, 2025	Exchange of witness statements and participant statements, summonsed witness outlines and participant statements
September 15, 2025	Parties to advise if all hearing days required
September 19, 2025	Exchange of reply witness statements
October 6, 2025	Exchange of visual evidence
October 10, 2025	Finalize joint document book
October 13, 2025	Hearing plan filed with Tribunal
October 20, 2025	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and 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 authorization 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as Parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

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 the witness 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 the expert’s (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 will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

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, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• 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-examination by the Party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.