Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 27, 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: Collingwood/Simcoe OLT Case No: OLT-24-000366 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000366 OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) v. Collingwood (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 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: Collingwood/Simcoe OLT Case No: OLT-24-000367 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000366 OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) v. Collingwood (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 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: Collingwood/Simcoe OLT Case No: OLT-24-000368 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000366 OLT Case Name: Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) v. Collingwood (Town)

Heard: May 6, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd.	Kyle Gossen Susan Rosenthal Liam Valgardson
Town of Collingwood	Steven O’Melia
County of Simcoe	Will Thomson Alex Freeman-Carter* (Articling Student)
Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation	Chris Mifflin*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON BY S. DEBOER ON MAY 6, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was the fourth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) pertaining to the appeals by Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. against the Town of Collinwood’s (“Town”) refusal of the 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 would permit the development of a 69-unit residential development on the Subject Lands.

PREVIOUS CMCS

3At the first CMC, Party status was granted to the County of Simcoe.

4The Second CMC dealt with a motion for dismissal, which was denied by the Tribunal.

5At the third CMC, the Tribunal granted Party status to Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation (“BMWTF”) and approved the Participant status of three individuals, that being Sharon Carr; Katherine Holmes; and Lisa Wilson.

6After the third CMC, the Parties scheduled three days of Tribunal-led mediation, which occurred on April 10, 17, and 29, 2025.

STATUS REQEUSTS

7No status requests were received prior to nor during the CMC.

STATUS UPDATE

8Counsel for the Applicant provided further background information and an update as to the results of the mediation. Counsel informed the Tribunal that a further Tribunal-led mediation date has been scheduled for August 20, 2025.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

9The Applicant submitted a revised draft Procedural Order and Issues List on consent prior to this CMC. After discussion with the Parties, minor changes needed to be completed to the Issues List. The Tribunal directed the Parties to submit an updated Procedural Order for the Tribunal’s review and approval by Thursday May 15, 2025.

10Since the time of the CMC, the Tribunal has received and reviewed the updated Procedural Order and approves of its contents. The attached Procedural Order (“Attachment 1”) will be used to govern the proceedings leading up to and including the scheduled merits hearing. If any modifications to the attached Procedural Order are needed due to the results of the future scheduled Tribunal-led mediation, the Tribunal directs the Parties to inform the Tribunal of these requested modifications by August 31, 2025. The Tribunal will then review the requested modifications and approve any such modifications to the Procedural Order it deems appropriate.

SCHEDULING OF A HEARING

11After canvassing the Parties pertaining to the scheduling of a 30-day hearing, the Tribunal scheduled the hearing to begin on Monday January 12, 2026, at 10 a.m. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday January 26, 2026, or Monday February 16, 2026. The final day of the hearing event is scheduled to occur on Tuesday February 24, 2026.

12Parties 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/765631861

Access code: 765-631-861

13Parties 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

14Persons 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: +1-647-497-9391 or (toll-free) +1-888-455-1389. The access code is as indicated above.

15Individuals 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

16The Tribunal orders is directions listed above.

17The Tribunal Member may be spoken to concerning procedural items pertaining to its directions listed above; schedule permitting.

“Steve DeBoer”

STEVE DEBOER MEMBER

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 1

ISSUE DATE: 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.

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

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

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 begin on January 12, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. at the following link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/765631861 The Tribunal will not sit on January 26, 2026 or February 16, 2026. As a result, the final day of the hearing will be February 24, 2026.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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

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 August 25, 2025 (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 September 12, 2025 (122 days prior to the start of the hearing).
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before September 24, 2025 (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 October 6, 2025 (98 days prior to the start of the hearing).
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.
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.
On or before October 14, 2025 (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.
On or before October 14, 2025 (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.
On or before December 8, 2025 (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.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before December 12, 2025 (31 days prior to the start of the hearing) in accordance with paragraph 22 below.
On or before January 2, 2026 (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.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 2, 2026 (10 days prior to the start of the hearing).
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.
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.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before January 5, 2026 (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.
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.
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.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DEADLINES

DATE	EVENT
August 25, 2025 (140 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline for List of Proposed Witnesses (para. 9)
September 12, 2025 (122 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline to challenge the qualification of an expert witness in the identified area of expertise (para. 9)
September 24, 2025 (110 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline for Expert Witness Meetings (para. 10)
October 6, 2025 (98 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline for Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues (para. 10)
October 14, 2025 (90 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline for Witness Statements, Expert Witness Statements and Participant Statements (paras. 13 and 14)
December 8, 2025 (35 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline to confirm if all hearing dates are still required (para. 15)
December 12, 2025 (31 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline for Reply Witness Statements (para. 16)
January 2, 2026 (10 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline for Visual Evidence (para. 17)
January 2, 2026 (10 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline for Joint Document Book (para. 18)
January 5, 2026 (7 days prior to the hearing)	Deadline for Hearing Plan (para. 21)

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES

PARTIES	COUNSEL / REPRESENTATIVE

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
Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation | Chris Mifflin (representative) Email: chris.mifflin@rogers.com Tel: 647.988.4357

PARTICIPANTS

Sharon Carr Email: sharoncarr@rogers.com Tel: 705.888.4601
Lisa Wilson Email: lisall23wilson@gmail.com Tel: 416.219.1666
Katherine Holmes Email: kholmes@holmespr.com Tel: 416.919.6310

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

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.

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

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

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

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?
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)

Do the Proposed Instruments conform to the County of Simcoe Official Plan, 2016 (“CSOP”), including 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?
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?
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)

Do the Proposed Instruments conform to the Town of Collingwood Official Plan, 2004 (“TOP”), including 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.
Has the Applicant provided sufficient justification and/or has the context significantly changed in a manner that would support a deviation from the access approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on July 31, 2014 (i.e. Section 4.3.2.6.3-5(a))?
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?
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

Have appropriate field surveys and the appropriate collection of data been completed in support of the Appellant’s 2023 EIS?
Do the ecological conditions and communities described within the 2023 EIS accurately reflect existing conditions within and adjacent to the subject property?
Has the fulsome extent of natural heritage features within and adjacent to the subject property been adequately identified within the 2023 EIS?
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?
Has the 2023 EIS appropriately addressed Species at Risk, Species at Risk Habitat, and the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, 2007?
Has the 2023 EIS appropriately identified and addressed potential impacts to Fish Habitat?
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?
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?
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?
Have previous tree removal and site alteration activities completed between 2016 to 2018 within the subject property negatively impacted the form or function of natural heritage features? If so, how should that and the subsequent rehabilitation be taken into account in the planning consideration?
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?
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?
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?
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?
If necessary, did the Appellant demonstrate sufficient efforts toward or any attempt at early consultation with Indigenous communities?

Other Issues

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?
Have the Ministry of Transportation comments dated December 8, 2023 regarding transportation corridor planning been adequately addressed by the Appellant?
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?
Is the proposed development suitably distanced/mitigated from a closed landfill site per D4 guidelines?
Does the proposal to allow access to the proposed development pod from the west conflict with the Orders of the Tribunal issued in respect of the subject lands dated July 31, 2014 (OMB Case No: PL120784) and September 19, 2022 (OLT Case No: 22-002301), to the extent that those Orders contemplate access to the development pod exclusively from the east?
What level of regard should be given to the Town of Collingwood Council’s refusal to adopt/approve the Proposed Instruments?
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)

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

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:
3.3.15 (Natural Heritage)
3.3.23 / 4.5.23/ 4.9.18 (D4/contaminated sites)
4.5.1/4.5.2/4.5.4 (water)
4.5.9/4.5.10 (Flood Plains and other hazard lands)
4.8.7/4.8.8/4.8.10/4.8.11/4.8.15(d)/4.8.20/ (transportation)

General Issues

Do the Proposed Instruments represent good planning?
Does the proposed development and/or access road compromise a future potential provincial transportation corridor?
Does the proposed development access road have no negative impact on significant natural heritage features?
To the extent the proposed development access road is through hazard lands/ watercourse(s), is it appropriate and/or good planning?
Is the proposed development suitably distanced/mitigated from a closed landfill site per D4 guidelines?
Do the Proposed Instruments conflict and/or are they incompatible with:

a. The Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan Condition #58 related to Part of Lots 47, 48 and 49, Concession 12 Town of Collingwood (i.e. the Huntingwood “West” Lands, Municipal File No: D1201111); and/or,

b. Schedule A2 of the Town’s Official Plan (2019); and/or,

c. 4.3.2.5.3-3 of the Town’s Official Plan (2019).

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd.
Town of Collingwood
County of Simcoe
Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Foundation
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.

Huntingwood Trails (Collingwood) Ltd. v. Collingwood (Town), 2025 CanLII 50806

Case Summary

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

APPEARANCES:

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON BY S. DEBOER ON MAY 6, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

PREVIOUS CMCS

STATUS REQEUSTS

STATUS UPDATE

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

SCHEDULING OF A HEARING

ORDER

ATTACHMENT 1

PROCEDURAL ORDER

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 5