Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. v. Collingwood (Town), 2025 CanLII 33042

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 08, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000366

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

Applicant/Appellant: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request

Description: To permit a 69-unit residential development

Reference Number: D0840223

Property Address: 5 Silver Creek Drive

Municipality/UT: Collingwood/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000366

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000366

OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. v. Collingwood (Town)

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

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

Reference Number: D0840223

Property Address: 5 Silver Creek Drive

Municipality/UT: Collingwood/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000367

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000366

OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. v. Collingwood (Town)

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

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Reference Number: D1201223

Property Address: 5 Silver Creek Drive

Municipality/UT: Collingwood/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000368

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000366

OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. v. Collingwood (Town)

Heard: March 17, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd.

Kyle Gossen Susan Rosenthal Liam Valgardson

Town of Collingwood

Steven O’Melia Summer Valentine*

County of Simcoe

Will Thomson Tiffany Thompson* Alex Freeman Carter* (articling student)

Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation

Chris Mifflin*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY YASNA FAGHANI ON MARCH 17, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for the above noted matter. Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. (“Applicant”) has filed appeals against the Town of Collingwood’s (“Town”) refusal of applications pursuant to s. 22(7), s. 34(11), and s. 51(34) of the Planning Act. The land is municipally known as 5 Silver Creek Drive, in the Town (“Subject Lands”).

2The applications under appeal are to permit the development of a 69-unit residential development on the Subject Lands.

STAUTS UPDATE

3Counsel for the Applicant provided background information regarding the development of the Subject Lands, including development area 1 (“east lands”) and development area 2 (“west lands”). Counsel advised that the Parties reached a settlement in 2021/2022 with respect to development on the west lands. The appeals before the Tribunal concern the east lands.

4In December 2024, at the second CMC, the Town brought a motion for dismissal of the appeals, or in the alternative, a request that the appeals be phased so that the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment appeals be heard in advance of the Draft Plan of Subdivision appeal. The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss. The request to phase the hearing was also denied. Counsel for the Applicant advised that a review of the Decision has been initiated; however, the grounds for the review do not concern the final order, but are related to a paragraph contained in the Decision.

5In addition, counsel for the Applicant advised that three-day mediation has been scheduled for April 10, 17, and 29, 2025.

PARTY/PARTICIPANT REQUESTS

6At the first CMC, the Tribunal granted Party status to the County of Simcoe (“County”) upon consent of the Parties. At this CMC, the Tribunal received a Party status request from Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation (“BMWTF”). Chris Mifflin, the representative of BMWTF, advised that BMWTF is a charity which has been active in the area for the past 30 years in its defense of the Collingwood/Blue Mountain Watershed. Its key interest in the appeals is to ensure flood plane protection. It intends to call one expert (hydrological engineer) to supplement the Town’s expert evidence. Its hydrological engineer would be hired to conduct a two-dimensional model which would provide a more detailed analysis of the impacts of development.

7Mr. Mifflin advised that the Town’s report contains technical deficiencies which require further analysis and comments in order to ensure that the natural hazard policies within the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 are being satisfied. He advised that BMWTF would be incorporating its issues within the current Issues List and would not broaden the scope.

8Counsel for the Applicant objected to BMWTF’s request to be added as a Party. The major argument concerned a duplication of efforts. Counsel for the Applicant submitted the flood plane issue is being addressed by both the Applicant and the Town through their respective experts, and a third engineer is not necessary. He submitted that adding BMWTF as a Party would result in adding time and cost to the hearing with no added contribution of expert evidence that is different from what will be heard. In response, Mr. Mifflin submitted that the modeling which the Town would rely on is not a two-dimensional model due to lack of resources. As such, BMWTF has raised funds to retain an expert to do the two-dimensional modeling which would address the issues properly.

9Counsel for the Town argued that BMWTF has a long history in the area and would bring a level of sophistication which would not result in a duplication of efforts. Counsel submitted that BMWTF has participated throughout the process, expressed interest, and raised funds to retain an expert to speak to the issues in dispute. He reiterated that BMWTF stated that it would operate within the existing identified issues.

10Counsel for the County did not object to BMWTF being added as a Party.

11The Tribunal was persuaded by BMWTF’s arguments and granted it Party status. The Tribunal finds BMWTF has key interests in these appeals and the evidence it intends to present is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate the appeals effectively and completely.

12Moreover, the Tribunal received Participant status requests from the following individuals: Sharon Carr; Katherine Holmes; and Lisa Wilson. On consent of the Parties, all three individuals were granted Participant status.

13For clarity, the second CMC was converted to a Motion and the presiding Member deferred consideration of status requests to this CMC. Given that the Procedural Order and Issues List have not yet been finalized, the Tribunal determined that no prejudice would be suffered by any Party if the status requests were granted at this CMC.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

14The Tribunal received a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) from the Applicant’s counsel, attached as Schedule A to this decision. He was in favour of scheduling a six-week hearing. He also noted there were concerns with respect to the issues identified in the IL. Counsel submitted that the Applicant was not seeking to contest the issues because of the beginning paragraph of the IL, however, he advised that more clarity and scoping was required. He referenced cases provided in the Applicant’s Book of Authorities, and identified the following areas of concern: 1) when there are policy references, greater particularity is required (issues 6, 9, and 12); 2) clarification with respect to issue 13 relating to “access”; and 3) lack of jurisdiction for the Tribunal to adjudicate issues 25, 35, 36, 46, and 47. Counsel for the Applicant noted that references to settlement agreements should be deleted (issues 46 and 47) and submitted that counsel for the County agreed to the deletion of the reference to “settlement” just prior to the CMC.

15Counsel for the Town responded to the identified concerns and provided more context and clarity. Specifically, he responded to some of the cases which counsel for the Applicant referenced in their Book of Authorities. He also agreed to change the language of the issues relating to the refence of “settlement” (issues 35 and 36) as the intention of the Town was not to have the Tribunal adjudicate previously reached settlement agreements.

16After hearing the submissions and noting that Parties are attending three days of mediation in April 2025, the Tribunal scheduled a further CMC on Tuesday, May 6, 2025. The Tribunal declined to schedule hearing dates but directed the Parties to work with each other on the IL now that each side had heard the respective positions, while noting that mediation may potentially reduce the issues in dispute, and therefore may reduce the number of days required for a hearing, if at all. The Parties were directed to provide a finalized PO and IL in advance of the next CMC and if there were concerns, the Tribunal would address same at that time.

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

17The fourth CMC is scheduled to proceed by video on Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at 10 a.m.

18Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293

Access code: 656-004-293

19Parties and 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

20Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application, or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 656-004-293.

21Individuals 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 event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

ORDER

22The Tribunal Orders that:

a. Party status is granted to the Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation;

b. Participant status is granted to Sharon Carr, Katherine Holmes, Lisa Wilson; and

c. The fourth Case Management Conference will commence at 10 a.m. by video on Tuesday, May 6, 2025.

22The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event of any issue arising from this Order.

23There is no further notice and the Member is not seized.

“Yasna Faghani”

Yasna Faghani

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.

SCHEDULE A

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000366

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

Applicant/Appellant: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request

Description: To permit a 69-unit residential development

Reference Number: D0840223

Property Address: 5 Silver Creek Drive

Municipality/UT: Collingwood/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000366

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000366

OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. v. Collingwood (Town)

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

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

Reference Number: D0840223

Property Address: 5 Silver Creek Drive

Municipality/UT: Collingwood/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000367

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000366

OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. v. Collingwood (Town)

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

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Reference Number: D1201223

Property Address: 5 Silver Creek Drive

Municipality/UT: Collingwood/Simcoe

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000368

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000366

OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. v. Collingwood (Town)

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 [date] at 10:00 a.m. at the following link: [insert link]

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is thirty (30) 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. The Procedural Order deadlines are found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 (see Attachment 5 for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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 4 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 [date – approximately 140 days prior to the start of the hearing] 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. A party who intends to challenge the qualification of an expert witness in the identified area of expertise shall notify the other parties of this challenge on or before [date – approximately 120 days prior to the start of the hearing].

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before [date – approximately 110 days prior to the start of the hearing] 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 [date – approximately 100 days prior to the start of the hearing].

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 [date – approximately 90 days prior to the start of the hearing], 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 [date – approximately 90 days prior to the start of the hearing], 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 [date – approximately 35 days prior to the start of the hearing], 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 [date – approximately 30 days prior to the start of the hearing] in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

17. On or before [date – approximately 10 days prior to the start of the hearing], 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.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before [date – approximately 10 days prior to the start of the hearing].

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 [date – approximately 7 days prior to the start of the hearing], 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 to the Tribunal and the Parties. 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

SUMMARY OF DEADLINES

DATE

EVENT

[date] (140 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline for List of Proposed Witnesses (para. 9)

[date] (120 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline to challenge the qualification of an expert witness in the identified area of expertise (para. 9)

[date] (110 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline for Expert Witness Meeting (para. 10)

[date] (100 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline for Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues (para. 10)

[date] (90 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline for Witness Statements, Expert Witness Statements and Participant Statements (paras. 13 and 14)

[date] (35 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline to confirm if all hearing dates are still required (para. 15)

[date] (30 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline for Reply Witness Statements (para. 16)

[date] (10 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline for Visual Evidence (para. 17)

[date] (10 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline for Joint Document Book (para. 18)

[date] (7 days prior to the hearing)

Deadline for Hearing Plan (para. 21)

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES

PARTIES

COUNSEL

Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. Applicant/Appellant

Davies Howe LLP 425 Adelaide Street West, The Tenth Floor Toronto ON M5V 3C1

Susan Rosenthal Email: susanr@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.263.4518

Kyle Gossen Email: kyleg@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.263.4519

Liam Valgardson Email: liamv@davieshowe.com Tel: 416.263.4517

Town of Collingwood Approval Authority

Miller Thomson LLP 115 King Street South, Suite 300 Waterloo ON N2J 5A3

Steven J. O’Melia Email: somelia@millerthomson.com Tel: 519.593.3289

Thomas Sanderson Email: tsanderson@millerthomson.com Tel: 519.593.2432

County of Simcoe Approval Authority

Will Thomson Barrister and Solicitor P.O. Box 314, Collingwood PO Main Collingwood ON L9Y 3Z7

Will Thomson Email: will@willthomson.ca Tel: 705.441.0054

PARTICIPANTS

[Name] [Email]

OLT CASE COORDINATOR

Jordan Viray Case Coordinator - Planner

Ontario Land Tribunal 655 Bay Street, Suite 1500 Toronto ON M5G 1E5

Email: Jordan.Viray@ontario.ca Tel: 437.226.5003

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Issues of the Town of Collingwood

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

1. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), and the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (collectively, the “Proposed Instruments”) have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as required by Section 2 of the Planning Act, including:

(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;

(d) the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest;

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

(l) the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities;

(m) the coordination of planning activities of public bodies;

(n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests;

(o) the protection of public health and safety;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; and

(s) the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate.

2. Do the Proposed Instruments provide the appropriate balance between the provincial priority for the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing, and the other relevant matters of provincial interests in Section 2 of the Planning Act?

3. Do the supporting documents submitted with the Proposed Instruments contain sufficient, accurate, and supportable information to determine and/or demonstrate if the Proposed Instruments have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as required by Section 2 of the Planning Act? If not, and if further information not supplied to the Town of Collingwood is submitted by the Appellant in support of these appeals, should the Tribunal refer the additional information to Collingwood Council for consideration pursuant to subsections 17(44.3) to 17(44.6), subsection 22(11), subsections 34(24.3) to 34(24.6), and subsections 51(52.3) to (52.6) of the Planning Act?

4. Does the proposed plan of subdivision satisfy the criteria set out in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act?

5. What are the appropriate conditions of approval that should be applied pursuant to subsection 51(25) of the Planning Act if the proposed plan of subdivision is to be approved? What additional technical information is needed to inform appropriate conditions, including without limitation engineering, design, traffic, stormwater and parkland?

Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (the “PPS”)

6. Is the proposed OPA/Draft Plan of Subdivision consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including sections [greater specificity sought]:

2.1 – Planning for People and Homes

2.2 – Housing

2.3 – Settlement Areas

2.4 – Policies for Strategic Growth Areas

2.9 – Climate Change

3.1 – Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities

3.2 – Transportation Systems

3.3 – Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors

3.5 – Land Use Compatibility

3.6 – Sewage, Water and Stormwater

3.9 – Public Spaces and Open Space

4.1 – Natural Heritage

4.2 – Water

4.6 – Cultural Heritage and Archaeology

5 – Protecting Public Health and Safety

5.2/5.3 – Natural Hazards, Human-Made Hazards

6.1 – General Policies for Implementation

6.2 – Coordination

6.2.2 – Coordination with indigenous communities

7. Do the Proposed Instruments provide the appropriate balance between the provincial policies that require an appropriate supply, range and mix of housing options and densities, and the other relevant provincial policies in the PPS?

8. Do the supporting documents submitted with the Proposed Instruments contain sufficient, accurate, and supportable information to determine and/or demonstrate if the Proposed Instruments are consistent with the PPS? If not, and if further information not supplied to the Town of Collingwood is submitted by the Appellant in support of these appeals, should the Tribunal refer the additional information to Collingwood Council for consideration pursuant to subsections 17(44.3) to 17(44.6), subsection 22(11), subsections 34(24.3) to 34(24.6), and subsections 51(52.3) to (52.6) of the Planning Act?

County of Simcoe Official Plan (2016, as amended)

9. Do the Proposed Instruments conform to the County of Simcoe Official Plan, 2016 (“CSOP”), including [greater specificity sought] Sections 1.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.3.15 (natural heritage), 3.3.23 / 4.5.23 / 4.9.18 (D4/contaminated sites), 3.4, 3.5, 3.8, 3.15, 4.1, 4.2; 4.3, 4.5 (water and floodplains), 4.6, 4.7, 4.8 (transportation), 4.9, 4.12, 5.10 and portions of Schedules relevant to the policy Sections listed?

10. Do the Proposed Instruments provide the appropriate balance between the CSOP policies that provide for an appropriate range of housing types and densities required to meet projected needs of current and future residents, and the other relevant policies in the CSOP?

11. Do the supporting documents submitted with the Proposed Instruments contain sufficient, accurate, and supportable information to determine and/or demonstrate if the Proposed Instruments conform to the CSOP? If not, and if further information not supplied to the Town of Collingwood is submitted by the Appellant in support of these appeals, should the Tribunal refer the additional information to Collingwood Council for consideration pursuant to subsections 17(44.3) to 17(44.6), subsection 22(11), subsections 34(24.3) to 34(24.6), and subsections 51(52.3) to (52.6) of the Planning Act?

Town of Collingwood Official Plan (2004, as amended)

12. Do the Proposed Instruments conform to the Town of Collingwood Official Plan, 2004 (“TOP”), including [greater specificity sought] Sections 2.5, 2.6, 3.1, 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 4.1, 4.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 7.1, 7.2.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.10.2, 8.11, 9.0, and portions of Schedules relevant to the policy Sections listed.

13. Has the Applicant provided sufficient justification and/or has the context significantly changed in a manner that would support a deviation from the access and other site-specific TOP policies approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on July 31, 2014 (i.e. Sections 4.3.2.5.3-3 and 4.3.2.6.3-5)?

14. Do the Proposed Instruments provide the appropriate balance between the TOP policies that ensure an adequate, varied and affordable supply of housing, and the other relevant policies in the TOP?

15. Do the supporting documents submitted with the Proposed Instruments contain sufficient, accurate, and supportable information to determine and/or demonstrate if the Proposed Instruments conform to the TOP? If not, and if further information not supplied to the Town of Collingwood is submitted by the Appellant in support of these appeals, should the Tribunal refer the additional information to Collingwood Council for consideration pursuant to subsections 17(44.3) to 17(44.6), subsection 22(11), subsections 34(24.3) to 34(24.6), and subsections 51(52.3) to (52.6) of the Planning Act?

Natural Heritage and Environmental Features

16. Have appropriate field surveys and the appropriate collection of data been completed in support of the Appellant’s 2023 EIS?

17. Do the ecological conditions and communities described within the 2023 EIS accurately reflect existing conditions within and adjacent to the subject property?

18. Has the fulsome extent of natural heritage features within and adjacent to the subject property been adequately identified within the 2023 EIS?

19. Has an appropriate assessment of natural heritage feature significance (i.e. Significant Woodlands, Significant Wetlands, Significant Wildlife Habitat, etc.) been completed within the 2023 EIS?

20. Has the 2023 EIS appropriately addressed Species at Risk, Species at Risk Habitat, and the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007?

21. Has the 2023 EIS appropriately identified and addressed potential impacts to Fish Habitat?

22. Have the findings and relevant implications of important associated technical studies such as the Hydrogeological Investigation, SWM report, and Floodplain Study been adequately incorporated into the EIS to support the characterization of existing environmental conditions, potential impacts, and/or mitigation measures?

23. Have appropriate mitigation measures been proposed to avoid or reduce impacts to natural heritage features and their functions, on and adjacent to the subject property?

24. Has the 2023 EIS effectively demonstrated that the proposed development and access road through hazard lands/watercourses will result in no negative impacts on natural heritage features, or their ecological functions, on and adjacent to the subject property?

25. Have previous tree removal and site alteration activities completed between 2016-2018 within the subject property negatively impacted the form or function of natural heritage features? If so, how should that be taken into account in the planning consideration?

26. Do the Proposed Instruments adequately demonstrate no negative and/or sufficient mitigation of impacts to Provincially, regionally, or locally significant natural heritage features and functions, and serve to maintain linkages and related functions among ground water features, hydrologic functions, natural heritage features and areas, and surface water features including shoreline areas?

27. Have the Natural Resources Solutions Inc. (NRSI) peer-review comments dated January 24, 2024 regarding protection of natural heritage features and functions been adequately addressed by the Appellant?

28. Do the Proposed Instruments appropriately demonstrate adequate safe access during times of flooding and avoid development patterns which may cause public health and safety concerns?

29. Have the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA) comments dated January 29, 2024 regarding natural hazards, flooding (engineering), watercourse crossing, stormwater management, water balance, hazardous soils, erosion control, and ecology been adequately addressed by the Appellant?

30. If necessary, did the Appellant demonstrate sufficient efforts toward or any attempt at early consultation with Indigenous communities?

Other Issues

31. Do the Proposed Instruments protect the Ministry of Transportation (MTO)-identified preliminary planned transportation corridor and has the Appellant adequately demonstrated that the development would not preclude or negatively affect the future potential for a Highway 26 bypass of Collingwood and Stayner?

32. Have the Ministry of Transportation comments dated December 8, 2023 regarding transportation corridor planning been adequately addressed by the Appellant?

33. Have the County of Simcoe comments dated December 11, 2023 and January 23, 2024 regarding transportation corridor planning and waste management been adequately addressed by the Appellant?

34. Is the proposed development suitably distanced/mitigated from a closed landfill site per D4 guidelines?

35. Do the Proposed Instruments conflict with the June 2014 Minutes of Settlement in Ontario Municipal Board Case No: PL120784?

36. Do the Proposed Instruments conflict with the settlement reached and the Ontario Land Tribunals decision dated September 19, 2022 in OLT Case No: 22-2301?

37. What level of regard should be given to the Town of Collingwood Council’s refusal to adopt/approve the Proposed Instruments?

38. Do the Proposed Instruments constitute good land use planning and are they in the public interest?

Issues of the County of Simcoe

Consistency With the Provincial Planning Statement (2024)

39. Is the proposed OPA/Draft Plan of Subdivision consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), specifically, sections:

• 3.3 – Transportation

• 3.5.1 – Land Use Compatibility

• 4.1 – Natural Heritage

• 4.2.2 – Water

• 5.2.2/5.2.3 – Natural Hazards

• 6.2.1 (c,d,e,f) – Coordination

• 6.2.2 – Coordination with indigenous communities

Conformity with the County of Simcoe Official Plan

40. Does the proposed OPA/Draft Plan of Subdivision conform with the County of Simcoe Official Plan generally, and specifically, does the OPA/Draft Plan conform with Sections:

a. 3.3.15 (Natural Heritage)

b. 3.3.23 / 4.5.23/ 4.9.18 (D4/contaminated sites)

c. 4.5.1/4.5.2/4.5.4 (water)

d. 4.5.9/4.5.10 (Flood Plains and other hazard lands)

e. 4.8.7/4.8.8/4.8.10/4.8.11/4.8.15(d)/4.8.20/ (transportation)

General Issues

41. Do the Proposed Instruments represent good planning?

42. Does the proposed development and/or access road compromise a future potential provincial transportation corridor?

43. Does the proposed development access road have no negative impact on significant natural heritage features?

44. To the extent the proposed development access road is through hazard lands/ watercourse(s), is it appropriate and/or good planning?

45. Is the proposed development suitably distanced/mitigated from a closed landfill site per D4 guidelines?

46. Does the proposed OPA/Draft Plan of Subdivision conflict with the June 2014 Minutes of Settlement in Ontario Municipal Board Case No: PL120784?

47. Does the proposed OPA/Draft Plan of Subdivision conflict with the settlement reached and the Ontario Land Tribunals decision dated September 19, 2022 in OLT Case No: 22-2301?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd.

2. Town of Collingwood

3. County of Simcoe

4. Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. (in reply)

ATTACHMENT 5

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A 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. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and 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.

A participant is an individual 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). Section 17 of the Ontario Land 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.

A 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 a list of reports or materials 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 supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

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

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

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.