Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 30, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000960

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 37(2) of the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.50

Applicant: Ministry of Transportation

Subject: Approval of Road Closing

Description: Road closing of portions of Maltby Road West and Concession Road 4 that intersect with or run into the right-of-way of the King’s Highway 6 within the Township of Puslinch

Ministry File No.: P-4100-144

Property Address: King’s Highway 6

Municipality/UT: Township of Puslinch, County of Wellington

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000960

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000960

OLT Case Name: Ontario (Transportation) (Re)

Heard: April 22, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel/Representative*

Ontario Ministry of Transportation (OMT)

Antonin I. Pribetic Eric Hou

AECOM Canada ULC

Geoff Coy*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION GAIL ROSS AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an Application by the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”), file OLT-24-000960 for the approval of road closures including the partial closing of Maltby Road West and Concession Road 4, which intersect with, or run into, the right-of-way of the King’s Highway 6, being a controlled-access highway within the Township of Puslinch, County of Wellington.

BACKGROUND

2The Application before the Tribunal sought approval to permanently close portions of two municipal roads, at two locations, as described in the submission by AECOM Canada ULC (“AECOM”) on behalf of MTO. The project is a part of a larger study addressing Highways 6 and 401 improvements.

3MTO’s objectives are to increase safety and capacity of Highway 6 by removing two at-grade intersections along Highway 6, resulting in the creation of an improved link between Highway 401 and the Guelph area. The construction includes a new Midblock interchange on Highway 6 with a new flyover structure. The direct access closures maintain the continuity of the local road network - save the cul-de-sac construction on Concession Road 4.

4The City of Guelph and Township of Puslinch provided acknowledgment/agreements of the road closings and improvements.

5The Tribunal was in receipt of Exhibits A through I noted in paragraph [22], including key documents such as the Affidavit of Service of Peter Verok P.Eng, The Engineering Evaluation Road Closure produced by AECOM Canada ULC Report (“AECOM Report”), including photo images of all public advertisements, as well as the targeted mail communications, and public postings of the project at intersection pertinent intersections; and the prepared slide show intended to be used at the Hearing for the Tribunal’s assistance.

6Submissions in the AECOM Report included statements of “alignment” with Provincial and Municipal plans including: The Greater Golden Horseshoe Transportation Plan (2022); Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020); Greenbelt Plan (2017); Guelph-Wellington Transportation Study (2005); and Wellington County Official Plan (2021).

7The AECOM Report also submitted that the project follows the applicable requirements under the MTO Class Environmental Assessment (“EA”), further noting extensive historical engagement sessions with the Public, Indigenous Communities, Regulatory Agencies and Municipalities from 1985 to 1994 and noted further Online Public Information (PIC) for Highways 6 and 401 Improvements which ran in 2021.

8Notices of Completions for Design and Construction are found in the Expert Construction reports 1 and 2. (see pg 15). Both notices stated that Maltby Road West/ Concession Road 4 intersection with Highway 6 were to be closed.

9The AECOM Report included the justification for the road closures included the MTO’s intention to convert Highway 6 (Hanlon Expressway) into a fully controlled access Freeway limiting access to interchange locations only, mitigating the safety and operational concerns existing at-grade intersection and the incompatibility with the Ministry’s plan to convert the applicable portion of Highway 6 to a controlled access freeway. (see pg 16 of the report).

10The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party or Participant status prior to the hearing.

THE HEARING

11An overview from the OMT submitted a general description of the Application and the project as set out in paragraphs [2] and [3] and reiterated that the application before the Tribunal remains uncontested.

12The Tribunal acknowledged that there were no requests for participation or party status and the submissions were uncontested.

13The Applicant’s Witness Peter Verok of AECOM (“Expert”), was affirmed by the Tribunal and was qualified as an Expert in the areas encompassing transportation; planning, design and construction.

14In giving testimony the Expert presented an overview of the project by way of a slide presentation, describing the project and improvements to Highway 6/Hanlong Expressway Midblock Interchange (“Highway 6”). The elements included: a new interchange on Highway 6, north of Wellington Road 34, with new connections to Concession Road 7 and Wellington Road 34; removal of a signalized intersection on Highway 6 at Wellington Road 34; a new bridge over Highway 6 for Wellington Road.

15The Expert further submitted that the project included reconstruction of concession Road 7 between Wellington Road 34; a new roundabout at the Wellington Road/ 34/ Concession Road 7 intersection and permanent closures of the Maltby Road West and Concession Road 4 intersection with Highway 6, both located in the Township of Puslinch.

16The benefits cited included: enhance safety and capacity; an improved link between the Guelph area and Highway 401; and mitigation of the congestion impacting local roads and improvement to the “connectivity” between Hamilton and Guelph.

17The Expert’s submissions noted that the existing intersection is not compatible with MTO’s intention to convert this section of Highway 6 to a controlled access freeway. Further that safety and operational issues with the Midblock interchange would be created without the closures.

18The Expert provided visual charts related to “out of the way travel”.

19Overall the submissions summarized improved safety along the Highway 6 corridor, the necessity for the Road closures required for the safe operation of the Midblock interchange, and the small number of motorists being impacted by mostly modest “out of the way travel”.

20In response to the Tribunal’s inquiry related to resident’s access to their homes, the OMT confirmed that at no time does the project interrupt permanent, temporary or even short-term access.

21During the review of the below Exhibits the Tribunal confirmed with the OMT that all applicable residents, businesses and agencies were included in the prepaid mail and electronic notifications. The OMT further confirmed that the key intersection postings were checked regularly to ensure they continued to be accessible.

EXHIBITS

22The following have been marked as Exhibits to these proceedings in its consideration of these matters:

1. Exhibit A: True copy of OLT’s Notice of Hearing
2. Exhibit B: True copy of the Public Notice and Applicable Publication Screen shots.
3. Exhibit C: Delivering of Notice by prepaid mail
4. Exhibit D: Posting copies of Notice in public places in and around the Municipality to locations as shown on Exhibit.
5. Exhibit E: Delivering the Notice by prepaid mail and by electronic mail to persons and agencies.
6. Exhibit F: True copy of the OLT direction Letter
7. Exhibit G: Expert’s Report (Engineering Evaluation of Road Closings)
8. Exhibit H: Slide Presentation (AECOM Expert)
9. Exhibit I: Expert’s Acknowledgment of Duty as Appended

CLOSING SUBMISSIONS

23The OMT reinforced the submissions by the Expert in the overview of the project and identified the Ministry’s requirement to provide a final public notice that includes that order or directions to that order will be circulated. Upon request of the Tribunal the OMT confirmed the final notice would be circulated to the public and post hearing confirmed further details, noting circulation would be published in newspapers having general circulation in the area affected, similar to how the publications of the notice of hearings were done, as identified earlier in the year. See Exhibit [B].

FINDINGS

24The Tribunal, when considering the Application for Road Closures, accepts the uncontested evidence provided by the Expert Witness as set out in paragraphs 15 to 19 including the justification of the necessity of the permanent closures.

25Pursuant to subsection 37(2) of the Public Transportation and Highway Act, subject to the approval of the Tribunal, the Minister may close any road, other than a highway that is under the jurisdiction and control of the Ministry, that intersects or runs into a controlled-access highway. Improvement Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.50.

DECISION

26The Tribunal, having reviewed all the materials submitted and as presented at the Hearing, and having considered the comprehensive and uncontested evidence, grants its approval to permanently close the Roads as set out in paragraph 15 of this Decision and detailed in Exhibit G and H.

ORDER

27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS Approval of the permanent road closures of Maltby Road West and Concession Road 4, intersecting with Highway 6, which are required to improve the safe operation of the new Midblock interchange and safety along the Highway 6 corridor.

“Gail Ross”

GAIL ROSS

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.