Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 21, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000686
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Cheryl Batten
Appellant: Krumac Holdings Inc.
Appellant: Pegasus Development Corporation c/o Andreas Foustanellas
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description: Appealing town-wide Official Plan Amendment No. 8
Reference Number: 0928-OP-23006
Property Address: Town-wide, 28 High Street
Municipality/UT: Carleton Place/Lanark
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000686
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000686
OLT Case Name: Cheryl Batten et al v. Lanark (County)
Heard: May 8, 2025, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Krumac Holdings Inc.
Michelle Cicchino Michael Polowin (in absentia)
Cheryl Batten
Self-Represented*
Town of Carleton Place
Emma Blanchard
County of Lanark
Gregory Meeds
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE ON MAY 8, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
Background
1This second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened for appeals brought pursuant to s. 17(36) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for an Official Plan Amendment No. 8 in the Town of Carleton Place (“Town”) regarding Appeal No. 010538, Appeal No. 010537, and Appeal No. 010539 (collectively “Appeals”).
2The approved Amendment No. OPA-02-2021 introduces several changes to the Official Plan, particularly affecting development densities and policies across various districts with the Town, including significant modifications to the Mississippi District concerning specific strategic properties relevant to the ongoing Appeals.
3At the first CMC, the Tribunal, through a Motion, ordered a Party status request form from Pegasus Development Corporation which was to be submitted to the Tribunal within five days following receipt of its written Order (January 13, 2025) if it seeks to shelter under a valid appeal.
4The Tribunal never received a Party status request form from Pegasus Development Corporation, and as such, Pegasus Development Corporation is not Party to these Appeals.
5Counsel for the Town and counsel for Krumac Holdings Inc. confirmed that the Town and Krumac Holdings Inc. have a settlement in principle regarding its appeal. Counsel for the Town advised that a few more weeks would be needed to finalize the Minutes of Settlement, and once complete, would advise the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator. The Parties would not be seeking a further Order or CMC date from the Tribunal concerning these Appeals.
CASE MANAGMEMENT CONFERENCE
6Cheryl Batten submitted that one of her issues, relating to Zoning By-law No. 32-2021, in her appeal form was not brought forward under the Draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”).
7The Tribunal heard submissions from both the Town and County of Lanark (“County”) that Zoning By-law No. 32-2021 was enacted in 2021 and was never appealed. Therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction and authority to scope issues that are not relevant to the Appeals before it.
8The Tribunal agrees with both counsel from the Town and County that Zoning By-law No. 32-2021 is not before it in these Appeals, and with the scoping of issues during this CMC, will not allow this to be an issue for the purpose of this Hearing.
HEARING DATES
9All Parties requested a one-day hearing, with the County acting as an observer, with their land use planner available if necessary. The County will rely on the evidence of the Town’s witnesses.
10The one-day Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 10 a.m.
11Parties and observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365
Access code: 709-076-365
12Parties and observers 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
13Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 709-076-365.
14Individuals 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.
Procedural Order and Issues List
15The Tribunal canvassed the Parties on a finalization of the PO and IL. The Town advised that Ms. Batten was not calling any expert witnesses except herself. Since Ms. Batten is an unrepresented Appellant, the Tribunal explained the hearing process to Ms. Batten, including the potential benefit of an expert witness such as a land use planner.
16Based on these discussions with the Parties, the Tribunal requested that the final PO and IL be submitted to the Tribunal on or before Monday, May 12, 2025, with the opportunity for Ms. Batten to provide her witnesses statement, or of a land use planner, according to the time provisions listed in the final PO.
17The Tribunal concurs with Town counsel’s submissions that if Ms. Batten decides to provide an expert witness other than a land use planner it would be a procedural fairness issue having to comply with having another witness coming forward at this late stage in the hearing process. Therefore, only a land use planner is to be provided by Ms. Batten, if she so desires, within the specified time frames outlined in the final PO.
18The Tribunal has since received and approves the final PO and IL and attached it to this Decision as Schedule A.
ORDER
19THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
(a) Pegasus Development Corporation is not a Party to these Appeals.
(b) Zoning By-law No. 32-2021 is not to be included on the Issues List for the purpose of these Appeals.
(c) The Hearing directives are set out above.
20No further notice will be provided.
21This Member is not seized, however, the Member will remain available for continued case management to the extent that the Tribunal calendar permits.
“Eric S. Crowe”
ERIC S. CROWE 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-24-000686
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Cheryl Batten
Appellant: Krumac Holdings Inc.
Appellant: Pegasus Development Corporation c/o Andreas Foustanellas
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description: Appealing town-wide Official Plan Amendment No. 8
Reference Number: 0928-OP-23006
Property Address: Town-wide, 28 High Street
Municipality/UT: Carleton Place/Lanark
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000686
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000686
OLT Case Name: Cheryl Batten et al v. Lanark (County)
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- 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
The video hearing will be held on June 26th, at 10:00 am.
The parties’ estimation for the length of the hearing is 1 day. 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 parties identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
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.
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.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address, and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address, and telephone number.
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
The Appellant may call a professional land use planner and/or may testify on her own behalf. In either case, on or before May 30th, 2025, the Appellant shall provide copies of a witness statement prepared by the person who will be testifying on behalf of the Appellant in the hearing, to the Respondent and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 15 below.
The Respondent has confirmed that it intends to call a professional land use planner and that it may call a professional land use planning witness from the County. On or before June 16th, 2025, the Respondent shall provide copies of their expert witness statement(s) to the Appellant and the OLT case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 15 below.
On or before June 20th, 2025, the Appellant may provide the Respondent and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written evidence received and in accordance with paragraph 15 below.
On or before June 23rd, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
A person wishing to change 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.
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.
All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. Electronic copies may be filed by email, or through 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.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure applies to such requests.
This Member is [not] seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
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.
ATTACHMENT “1”
LIST OF PARTIES
- Appellant, Cheryl Batten
- Respondent, Town of Carleton Place
ATTACHMENT “2”
LIST OF ISSUES
The amended policies in the Town of Carleton Place Official Plan Amendment (“OPA 8”) under appeal in this proceeding are those applicable to the Mississippi Residential Sector, specifically: the policies within Sections 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4.3, and 3.2.2.1, as well as policy 3.5.3(11)1 (the “Contested Policies”). The issues are:
Do the Contested Policies in OPA 8 have appropriate regard for relevant matters of provincial interest enumerated in section 2 of the Planning Act, specifically the matters set out in sections: a. h (orderly development of safe and healthy communities) b. j (adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing), c. p (appropriate location of growth and development), and d. r (promotion of built form that is well-designed, etc.).
Are the Contested Policies in OPA 8 consistent with the relevant policies in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, specifically policies 2.2 (housing), 2.3.1 (general policies for settlement areas), and 2.4.1 (general policies for strategic growth areas).
Do the Contested Policies in OPA 8 conform to the relevant policies in the Lanark County Sustainable Communities Official Plan, specifically policies 2.3 (settlement area policies), 2.6 (settlement area land use policies), 8.2.5 (Development Permit By-law).
ATTACHMENT “3”
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
- Case for the Appellant, Cheryl Batten
- Case for the Respondent, the Town of Carleton Place
- Reply by the Appellant (if any)