Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 16, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-000343
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant
2439675 Ontario Inc. and 2439672 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
OPA/ZBA - Permit development of mixed-use towers
Reference Number:
OPA No. 47
Property Address:
435 King Street North and 450-460 Weber Street North
Municipality/UT:
Waterloo/Waterloo
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-000343
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-000343
OLT Case Name:
2439675 Ontario Inc. v Waterloo (City)
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:
Z-23-07
Property Address:
435 King Street North and 450-460 Weber Street North
Municipality/UT:
Waterloo/Waterloo
OLT Case No:
OLT-24-000344
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-24-000343
Heard:
June 25, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2439675 Ontario Inc. and 2439672 Ontario Inc.
R. Howe
City of Waterloo
S. Smith
G. Daley
Region of Waterloo
F. McCrea
The Club Willowells
K. Thompson
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER ON JUNE 25, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal had originally scheduled a 20-day hearing to hear the merits of the appeals by 2439675 Ontario Inc. and 2439672 Ontario Inc. (“Appellants”) due to the City of Waterloo’s (“City”) failure to approve the proposed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pertaining to the lands municipally known as 435 King Street North and 450-460 Weber Street North (“Subject Lands”).
2Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence from the City advising that the Parties have reached a settlement on the issues and was making a request that the merit hearing be converted to a settlement hearing.
3In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the settlement.
4When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), conforms to the Region of Waterloo Official Plan (“ROP”), conforms to the City of Waterloo Official Plan (“COP”) and conforms to the City of Waterloo Zoning By-law Z-23-07 (“ZBL”).
5In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Application represents good planning and is in the public interest.
SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
6The Subject Lands are comprised of two separate parcels. The parcel known as 435 King Street (“King Parcel”) fronts onto the west side of King Street North and is adjacent to Blue Springs Drive. The parcel known as 450-460 Weber Street North (“Weber Parcel”) fronts onto Weber Street North in the vicinity of Milford Avenue and Blythwood Road.
7The King Parcel has an approximate area of 2.4 hectares (“ha”), and the Weber Parcel has an approximate area of 7.2 ha. The King Street Parcel has a frontage of approximately 131 metres (“m”) on King Street North, and the Weber Parcel has a frontage on Weber Street of approximately 294 m. The parcels are on an irregular shape with two existing commercial buildings located on the King Parcel. The Weber Parcel is undeveloped and currently used for farming purposes.
8Directly to the north of the Subject Lands is the Parkway Ford automotive dealership. The dealership includes a large central building and extensive surface parking. Further to the north is the Inn of Waterloo, which is a former hotel that has since closed its operations. A mixed-use redevelopment of commercial, residential and office uses is proposed for the Inn of Waterloo property. There is an appeal currently before the Tribunal on this property, however, a decision on this appeal has not been finalized.
9To the west of the Subject Lands is an existing residential neighbourhood across Weber Street North. The neighbourhood is predominantly low rise, with some areas accommodating and/or planned for medium density residential uses (townhouses and apartments). Winston Churchill Public School is located to the west, within walking distance of the Subject Lands.
10To the south of the Subject Lands is a small commercial development that includes a restaurant, an office building, and a Farm Boy grocery store. Additional commercial uses are located along the north side of Weber Street in two separate parcels, one of which includes a multi-unit building.
11To the east, along Blue Springs Drive, is a restaurant, office building and several residential buildings, including an approved (in 2019), but not yet constructed, high-rise residential building on the north side of Blue Springs Drive.
12King Street is a Regional Road that provides access through the city, including to the Uptown (Waterloo’s downtown, located to the south), as well as into Woolwich Township to the north and Downtown Kitchener, located south of the Uptown.
13Weber Street is also a Regional Road that provides access through Waterloo and into Downtown Kitchener, as well as into the Township of Woolwich, including the St. Jacobs market area.
14The purpose of the applications would permit the redevelopment of the two parcels for a mixed-use development comprising of 13 residential high-rise towers of various heights. Podium buildings in the high-rise towers would contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses, and parking facilities.
SUBMISSIONS
15Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents and submitted said documents as exhibits to the hearing:
Exhibit 1: Notice of Motion to Approve by the Appellants excluding Minutes of Settlement
Exhibit 2: Proposed Final Official Plan Amendment
Exhibit 3: Proposal Final Zoning By-law Amendment
16On behalf of the Parties, the Appellant presented Trevor Hawkins, a Partner with MacNaughton, Hermsen, Britton Clarkson Planning Limited, a consulting firm that specializes in land use planning, urban design, cultural heritage planning and landscape architecture. Mr. Hawkins was retained by the Appellants at the beginning of the application process. Mr. Hawkins was affirmed and qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to the proposed settlement.
Planning Evidence
17Mr. Hawkins gave further background information concerning the history of the applications and the process leading up to this settlement hearing. This process included:
a. Architectural Plans (Conceptual Site Plan, Building Elevations, Renderings and Ground Floor Plan) prepared by ABA Architects, dated April 24, 2023;
b. Planning Justification Report prepared by MHBC, dated April 2023;
c. Urban Design Guidelines prepared by MHBC, dated April 2023;
d. Pedestrian Wind Assessment prepared by SLR, dated March 24, 2023;
e. Shadow Study prepared by ABA Architects and Analysis by MHBC, dated April 2023 and revised May 2023;
f. Energy Strategy prepared by WalterFedy, dated April 21, 2023;
g. Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report prepared by WalterFedy, dated April 18, 2023;
h. Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Chung & Vander Doelen, dated November 3, 2016;
i. Scoped Hydrogeological Assessment prepared by Chung & Vander Doelen, dated April 24, 2023;
j. Transportation Impact Assessment prepared by Paradigm Transportation Solutions, dated April 24, 2023; and
k. Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by SLR, dated April 2023.
18Mr. Hawkins opined that the applications were submitted to the City on April 28, 2023, and were deemed complete on May 26, 2023. An informal public meeting was held on June 19, 2023, the purpose of which was to introduce the applications to the public and to the Council.
19Comments concerning the applications were received from the Region of Waterloo (“Region”) on August 23, 2023, including peer review comments related to the submitted Noise Study. Additional comments were provided on February 12, 2024.
20A Neighbourhood Information Meeting was held by the Owners on September 27, 2023, where the Applications were presented to the public and comments were recorded.
21Comments on the Applications were received from the City on October 27, 2023, which also included comments from the circulated agencies.
22Following a meeting with City staff and the Owners’ consulting team, a second comment letter was provided by the City on December 7, 2023. MHBC provided a response to the City’s December 7, 2023, comments in a letter dated January 17, 2024.
23A Notice of Appeal was filed with the City on March 18, 2024, pursuant to Sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, based on the City’s failure to make a decision on the Applications within the statutory timeframe.
Revisions to the Applications and the Settlement Before the Tribunal
24Mr. Hawkings opined that the Appellants began settlement discussions with the City, the Region and with The Club Willowells, (“TCW”) who was granted Party status at the first and only Case Management Conference that was conducted by the Tribunal on July 5, 2024. Through the settlement discussions and meetings of the experts, the Parties have agreed to a revised OPA 47 and a revised ZBA. The revisions include agreed-upon Concept Plans, while addressing other technical issues to the proposal.
25The revisions to the planning instruments are as follows:
a. The central Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space (POPS) was modified to increase the width of the entry from Weber Street.
b. The Connectivity Spine was enhanced and widened, providing a larger active transportation connection through the Subject Lands, with available connections to the lands to the south and to the north (in the event those lands redevelop in the future).
c. Tower H2 was originally planned as a tower with a length of 40 metres. The length of the tower has been reduced to 30 metres, to reduce shadows on the central POPS. To assist in retaining a similar number of units, the height of the tower increased from 25 to 26 storeys.
d. Surface parking spaces were removed in certain locations to increase the amount of landscape space and to emphasize the primacy of active transportation over vehicular transportation.
e. Certain internal driveways leading to structured parking have been consolidated to reduce their number or length.
26Mr. Hawkins continued with his opinion that the above noted changes are reflected in the Proposed OPA and Proposed ZBA. City comments on other matters not shown explicitly on the Concept Plans such as a minimum number of commercial/office uses were addressed through changes to the Proposed OPA and Proposed ZBA, as applicable. Although not specifically depicted on the Concept Plans and not directly reflected in the Proposed OPA or Proposed ZBA, the total number of residential units has increased slightly from 2,972 to 2,979.
27It was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposed OPA will:
a. Designate the Weber Street Parcel ‘Commercial’ on Schedule ‘A’ (note that the King Street Parcel is already designated Commercial on Schedule ‘A’);
b. Designate the entire lands ‘Mixed-Use Community Commercial’ on Schedule A1;
c. Remove the Weber Street Parcel from Schedule ‘A2’ (Employment Areas);
d. Identify the Subject Lands as subject to a new Specific Provision Area (“SPA 84”) on Schedule ‘A6’ and to delete existing SPA 44 as it applies to the King Street Parcel; and
e. Designate the Weber Street Parcel ‘High Density, 81 Metres’ on Schedule ‘B1’ (note that the King Street Parcel are already designated High Density, 81 Metres).
28Mr. Hawkins opined that SPA 84 will include site-specific polices that are designed to address the following matters:
a. The design of the buildings, location of non-residential uses (which can include commercial, office and permitted employment uses), encouraging active transportation and supporting transit;
b. The coordinated build-out of the multi-phase development;
c. The type, amount and format of non-residential uses to be permitted by the Zoning By-law;
d. Additional non-residential uses including quasi-employment uses (e.g. advanced technology research and development facilities) to be permitted;
e. Policies that permit multi-unit residential buildings and permission for ground floor residential units in certain locations, to be implemented through the Zoning By-law;
f. Policy direction for varied building heights across the Subject Lands;
g. Maximum building heights on the Weber Street Parcel that range from 6 to 25 storeys, with one building permitted 26 storeys, to be implemented through the Zoning By-law;
h. A maximum building height of 30 storeys on the King Street Parcel, with two buildings permitted to have a maximum building height of up to 35 storeys, to be implemented through the Zoning By-law;
i. Maximum density to be measured as a maximum number of total bedrooms on the Subject Lands, not to exceed 4,750;
j. A minimum of 10,000 square metres of non-residential floor area be provided on the Subject Lands;
k. A central ‘Connectivity Spine’ to be provided as an active transportation corridor through the lands from north to south. The Connectivity Spine is also identified on a separate Schedule to the Proposed OPA;
l. Parkland dedication requirements for any particular phase of the development may be deferred to a subsequent phase where an agreement has been entered into between the owner and the City providing for the future provision of one or more open space(s) in a subsequent phase, for the purposes of satisfying the parkland dedication requirement for a particular phase.
29Mr. Hawkins continued with his opinion that the proposed ZBA amends the following:
a. Rezones the Subject Lands ‘Mixed-Use Community Commercial (C1-81)’, subject to site specific provisions, with that portion of the Subject Lands located within 70 metres of the shared property line with 455 King Street North (Parkway Ford dealership) subject to a holding symbol and zoned ‘Holding Mixed-Use Community Commercial ((H)C1-81)’.
b. Identify the Subject Lands as subject to a new ‘Site-Specific Exception (C274)’ on Schedule ‘C’ and’C1’ and to delete the existing Site-Specific Exceptions C84 and C206 as they apply to the Subject Lands.
30Mr. Hawkins opined that the Site-Specific Exception (C274) included provisions that address the following matters:
a. Permission for additional primary permitted uses, including additional non-residential (e.g. commercial and employment) and residential uses;
b. Prohibition on certain auto-oriented uses (e.g. automobile gas station, car wash);
c. Permission for ground floor residential units within specific areas of the site;
d. The regulation of density as a maximum number of bedrooms permitted on the lands, not to exceed 4,750;
e. Specific maximum permitted building heights within different areas of the site, with lower heights permitted along Weber Street, greater height permitted internal to the site and 25 storeys along King Street (which is already permitted in the Zoning By-law), which will ensure variation and transitions in height;
f. Permission and regulations for the location and height of a rooftop architectural feature and specific maximum height for an elevator/mechanical penthouse;
g. Permission for common amenity areas accessible to multiple buildings;
h. The requirement for a minimum of 10,000 square metres of non-residential floor area, including a maximum amount of non-residential space within ‘live-work’ units;
i. Permission for the minimum non-residential building floor area to be satisfied in a phased manner subject to a plan demonstrating how compliance with said minimum will be satisfied at final build out;
j. Minimum and maximum parking requirements for residential, visitor and non-residential vehicular parking;
k. An exception to the maximum driveway width regulations (to permit a wider driveway at Weber Street)
l. The requirement for a minimum of 15% of the site to be landscaped, excluding the POPS;
m. Regulations for ground floor uses intended to shield structured parking from view in certain (public oriented) locations on the site;
n. The requirement that building permits be permitted only where sufficient servicing capacity has been demonstrated;
o. The requirement that the lowest floor elevation of any building (including a basement or parking structure) be located at or above a certain elevation (326.4 m Above Sea Level (“mASL”) to ensure buildings are located above the high groundwater elevation; and
p. A prohibition on geothermal wells.
31The Holding provision is necessary for the submission of an Air Quality Study that will assess the impact – if any – of the Parkway Ford dealership located at 455 King Street North, which is adjacent to the Subject Lands, to the satisfaction of the City.
Planning Policy Analysis
Planning Act
32In his planning analysis, Mr. Hawkins opined that the applications have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest, as per s. 2 of the Act, as the applications do not contain any natural features or natural resources on the Subject Lands. The Subject Lands do not require protection of agricultural resources as the farming that is currently taking place on the Weber Parcel is only as an interim land use. The Subject Lands do not contain any features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, or scientific interest. The Subject Lands will make use of existing municipal services and any modifications will be provided by the owner. The proposal before the Tribunal will minimize waste where possible and the buildings will be built with accordance to the building permit process and will be accessible to persons with disabilities. The proposal will provide a needed range of housing choices and includes the Subject Lands which are in proximity to community amenities, including parks, schools, trails, and a wide range of services along King Street and Weber Street.
33Mr. Hawkins continued with his planning analysis, stating that the Subject Lands are located within a built-up area and within a Major Node, Major Corridor and Minor Corridor. This area is a focused of future growth, and the Subject Lands are located on an existing public transit route, and the Conestoga LRT Station is located within 1 kilometre of the development. It was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the settlement proposal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS”)
34Mr. Hawkins opined that the settlement before the Tribunal is consistent with the PPS. Section 2.1 of the PPS pertains to the achievement of complete communities. The proposal will help contribute to a complete community. The proposed settlement will promote an efficient use of land while providing housing options and densities that will make efficient use of land resources and infrastructure. The proposed settlement includes high density residential and non-residential uses that maximize the use of under-utilized parcels of land. The Subject Lands are situated adjacent to existing public transit and is within walking distance to the LRT station at Conestoga Mall. The Subject Lands are located within a Major Node, Major Corridor and Minor Corridor within the City, which is an area of the focus of growth for the City.
35Mr. Hawkins continued with his opinion that the proposed settlement includes a mix of housing types such as one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units. These mix of housing types will make efficient use of other existing public service facilities such as schools, hospitals, and community recreation facilities. There are two existing schools that are within walking distance of the Subject Lands, and a new hospital has been approved that is within two kilometres of the Subject Lands. There are four existing parks and trails within walking distance, and this does not include the proposed POPS that will be located on the Subject Lands.
36It was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the settlement proposal before the Tribunal is consistent with the PPS.
ROP
37Concerning the ROP, it was Mr. Hawkins’ stated that the Region became an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities on January 1, 2025. However, the ROP is still relevant since it is deemed to be an Official Plan to the City as of the same January 1, 2025, date. Mr. Hawkins continued with his opinion that the settlement proposal conforms to the ROP as the Subject Lands are not required for employment purposes over the long term. The settlement will provide an opportunity for the Subject Lands to provide for an appropriate transition from the ‘Flexible Industrial’ lands to the north. The ROP designates the lands as being in a ‘Built Up Area’. This designation permits a wide range of urban uses including high density residential development. This designation establishes an intensification target of 83% in the ‘Built Up Area’ of the City. This development will help the City achieve this target. Regional staff requested a prohibition of geothermal energy systems on the Subject Lands. The settlement before the Tribunal includes this prohibition as apart of the ZBA. The Subject Lands are located on a Major Node, Major Corridor and Minor Corridor all of which are forecasted to accommodate growth and intensification. As such, it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposed settlement does conform to the ROP.
COP
38It was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the Subject Lands are apart of the previously stated Major Node, Major Corridor and Minor Corridor and intensification in the City is to occur in the ‘Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre’, as directed by the COP. The proposed settlement meets the applicable objectives to the ‘City Form’ policies within the COP. The proposed settlement will help meet housing needs based on the City’s projected population and employment growth and the proposed settlement will make use of underutilized lands within the City’s ‘Uptown Waterloo Urban Growth Centre’. The proposal will create a residential and mixed-use development that will allow for an efficient transition from the ‘Flexible Industrial’ lands to ‘Residential’ lands.
39Mr. Hawkins continued with his opinion that the proposal on the Subject Lands makes efficient use of existing transportation systems, provides for a livable and healthy mixed-use form and provides opportunities for alternative transportation other than an automobile as public transportation is readily available adjacent to the Subject Lands.
40Mr. Hawkins opined that the current ‘Mixed-use Community Commercial’ designation allows for residential uses may be permitted above the ground floor on a multi-storey building. Parking for the proposal will be located mostly below ground. The proposed ZBA will permit free standing residential buildings in specific locations of the Subject Lands.
41Concerning Policy 10.2.1(10), it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that this policy lists criteria for applications pertaining to an increase in height and density for residential uses within Commercial designations. The settlement proposal before the Tribunal meets these applicable criteria and the proposal aligns with the policy direction in the City OP in respect of uses and built form, and other requirements of the ‘Mixed-Use Community Commercial’ designation.
42Pertaining to Policy 3.4 of the COP, it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that this section of the COP permits a maximum of 81 metres of height within a High-Density designation. SPA 84 will permit a range of building heights from 21 metres to 118 metres. SPA 84 will provide for an appropriate range of heights across the Subject Lands and this range of heights will satisfy the City’s sun/shadow criteria. The proposal before the Tribunal meets all the criteria permitting a greater height than the permitted maximum 81 metres. These criteria include that the Subject Lands are located within a Major Node, Major Corridor and Minor Corridor, access to regional road networks, access to existing public transit, will be well served by existing commercial services, public services such as public schooling and public parks spaces.
43Overall, it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal meets the intent and purpose of the goals and objectives of the COP. As such, the proposal conforms to the COP and is a good use of the Subject Lands.
ZBL
44It was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal will permit stand-alone residential buildings in certain areas away from the King Street and Weber Street frontages, and ground floor residential uses within mixed-use buildings, within certain areas of the Proposed Development, in addition to the apartment units permitted above the first storey in a mixed-use building generally permitted in the ‘C1’ zone. These additional residential uses are appropriate, given the depth of the site, and to animate internal areas.
45Pertaining to height and density, it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the site-specific exception regulations in the Proposed ZBA permit height and density consistent with the policies of the Proposed OPA. Specifically, a maximum density of 4,750 bedrooms is permitted across the Subject Lands. Specific maximum heights are permitted on different areas within the Subject Lands, identified on a map within the site-specific exception.
46In consideration of parking and driveway width, it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposal’s supply of parking is adequate considering the other forms of transportation that are readily available.
47Mr. Hawkins opined that the structures will be built above the 326.4 mASL as requested by the TCW. In addition, there will be two POPS provided on the Subject Lands which will further enhance outdoor amenities for the future residents.
Overall Opinion
48Overall, it was Mr. Hawkins’ opinion that the proposal before the Tribunal is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to the ROP, COP and the ZBL. The proposal before the Tribunal represents good land use planning and the instruments before the Tribunal should be approved as presented.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
49Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence in support of the settlement provided by Mr. Hawkins, the Tribunal finds that the proposal before the Tribunal does have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Planning Act.
50The Tribunal finds that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that the proposal is consistent with the PPS 2024. The proposal will help create a complete community by efficiently using underutilized parcels of land while using existing municipal services and making use of existing public transit. The Subject Lands are within a ‘Strategic Growth Area’ that is the focus of planned intensification.
51The Tribunal finds that the evidence has demonstrated that the proposal conforms with the general intent and purpose of the ROP and COP. The proposal before the Tribunal conforms with the applicable polices pertaining to developing complete communities, supporting transit and intensification within a strategic growth area.
52The Tribunal finds that the proposed settlement meets the objectives, principles, and vision of the COP. The settlement meets the criteria for applications that propose to increase the overall height permitted, aligns with the policy directions in the COP with respect to uses and built form and other requirements of the ‘Mixed-Use Community Commercial’ designation.
53The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal and changes to the ZBA will permit a wider range of non-residential uses and will be in a built form that allows for an appropriate range of building heights and density to occur.
54The Tribunal notes that the conditions that are to be satisfied for the proposed OPA and ZBA have been clearly stated within the planning instruments themselves and does not require an Interim Order from the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the settlement proposal before it represents good land use planning.
55The Tribunal rules that the Motion to approve the settlement proposal through an oral decision is appropriate and is granted.
ORDER
56THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and the Official Plan of the City of Waterloo is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Waterloo to assign a number to this amendment for record keeping purposes.
57THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, and amends the Comprehensive Zoning By-law ZBL 2018-050 as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Waterloo to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
58The Tribunal member may be spoken to if there are issues arising from the implementation of these planning instruments, schedule permitting.
“S. deBoer”
S.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
ATTACHMENT 2