Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

July 21, 2025

CASE NO.:

OLT-25-000205

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

Applicant/Appellant

Glen Rouge Developments Inc

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To facilitate a mixed-use development comprised of 3 high-rise buildings and stacked townhouses

Reference Number:

OZS-2023-0010

Property Address:

2036 Bovaird Drive West

Municipality/UT:

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000205

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000205

OLT Case Name:

Glen Rouge Developments Inc. v. Brampton (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant

Glen Rouge Developments Inc

Subject:

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

Description:

To facilitate a mixed-use development comprised of 3 high-rise buildings and stacked townhouses

Reference Number:

OZS-2023-0010

Property Address:

2036 Bovaird Drive West

Municipality/UT:

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000210

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-25-000205

BEFORE:

N. EISAZADEH

Monday, the 14th

MEMBER

day of July, 2025

UPON APPEALS having been brought by Glen Rouge Developments Inc. (“Appellant”) under subsection 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, regarding the failure by the City of Brampton (“City”) to make decisions within the prescribed time period in respect of applications for an Official Plan Amendment and a Zoning By-Law Amendment, respectively, which seek to facilitate the development of a mixed-use development comprised of three high-rise buildings consisting of commercial, medial office, and apartment units as well as stacked townhouse dwellings totaling 1240 residential units on the lands municipally known as 2036 Bovaird Drive, in the City (“Subject Lands”);

AND THIS MATTER having come before the Tribunal on Monday, July 14, 2025, by videoconference for a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”);

AND THE TRIBUNAL having received a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) inclusive of finalized Issues List as agreed to by the Parties and endorsed by the Tribunal;

AND THE TRIBUNAL having scheduled a 10-day Merit Hearing to commence on Monday, May 25, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. by videoconference with the following log-in credentials:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077

Access code: 927-921-077

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

Parties and/or 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

Persons 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) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 927-921-077.

Individuals 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.

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The Procedural Order appended as Attachment 2 shall govern the conduct of this proceeding.

2. A 10-day Merit Hearing is scheduled to commence on Monday, May 25, 2026, at 10 a.m., by videoconference at the details above referenced.

3. This Member is not seized.

4. There will be no further notice.

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN

REGISTRAR

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

CMC Attendance List

Party Name

Counsel

Glen Rouge Developments Inc.

Cheeseman, R.D. Fleming, S.A

City of Brampton

Koschany, N. Engell, B. (in absentia)

CMC Attendance List

Participant Name

Counsel

Mount Pleasant Heights Block 51-3 Landowners Group Inc.

Mickelson, M. (Student-at-Law) Morley, J. (in absentia)

Attachment 2

CASE NO.: OLT-25-00205

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

Applicant/Appellant

Glen Rouge Developments Inc

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To facilitate a mixed-use development comprised of 3 high-rise buildings and stacked townhouses

Reference Number:

OZS-2023-0010

Property Address

2036 Bovaird Drive West

Municipality/UT

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000205

OLT Lead Case No

OLT-25-000205

OLT Case Name

Glen Rouge Developments Inc. v. Brampton (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant

Glen Rouge Developments Inc

Subject:

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

Description:

To facilitate a mixed-use development comprised of 3 high-rise buildings and stacked townhouses

Reference Number:

OZS-2023-0010

Property Address

2036 Bovaird Drive West

Municipality/UT

Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No:

OLT-25-000210

OLT Lead Case No

OLT-25-000205

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on May 25, 2026 at 10 a.m..

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 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.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

9. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered by February 20, 2026 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.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting by Monday, March 16, 2026 noted in paragraph 13 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 by Friday, March 27, 2026.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. By Friday, April 10, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

15. By Friday, April 10, 2026, 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.

16. By Monday, April 20, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. By Friday, May 15, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence within ten (10) days after the evidence is received and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator by Friday, May 15, 2026.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal by Tuesday, May 19, 2026 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.

25. All filings shall be submitted electronically unless otherwise directed. 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.

26. 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.

Summary of Procedural Dates

Date

Event

February 20, 2026

Witness List

Monday, March 16, 2026

Final day for expert witness meeting(s)

Friday, March 27, 2026

Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues filed

Friday, April 10, 2026

Expert witness statements and witness evidence briefs due

Friday, April 10, 2026

Written participant statements due

Monday, April 20, 2026

Response(s) to written evidence due

Monday, April 20, 2026

Hearing date confirmation

Friday, May 15, 2026

Visual evidence due

Friday, May 15, 2026

Joint Document Book due

Tuesday, May 19, 2026

Preliminary hearing plan due

Monday, May 25, 2026

Hearing Begins

Attachment 1 – List of Parties and Participants

Parties

1. Glen Rouge Developments Inc.

2. City of Brampton

Participants

3. Mount Pleasant Heights Block 51-3 Landowners Group Inc.

Attachment 2 – Issues List

1. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), proposed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), and the development that would be facilitated by these (the “Proposal”) have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as required by section 2 of the Planning Act including subsections 2(d), 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(p), 2(q) and 2(r)?

2. Are the OPA and ZBA consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, including, without limitation, policies:

• 2.1.4 and 2.1.6 (Planning for People and Homes)

• 2.3.1 (Settlement Areas)

• 2.4.1 (Strategic Growth Areas)

• 2.8.1(1) (Employment)

• 3.1 (Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities)

• 4.6.1 (Cultural heritage and Archaeology)?

3. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan (April, 2022), including, without limitation, policies:

4. • 5.4.1 to 5.4.8 (Growth Management Objectives)
5. • 5.4.10, 5.4.12 and 5.4.16 (Growth Management Policies)
6. • 5.4.18.1 to 5.4.18.8 (Intensification Objectives)
7. • 5.4.18.9 to 5.4.18.20 (Intensification Policies)
8. • 5.4.19.1 to 5.4.19.3 (Greenfield Density Objectives)
9. • 5.4.19.9 to 5.4.19.10 (Greenfield Density Policies)
10. • 5.6.3, 5.6.4 and 5.6.9 (Urban System Objectives)
11. • 5.6.11 (Urban System Policies)
12. • 5.6.20.4 and 5.6.20.7 (Designated Greenfield Area Objectives)
13. • 5.6.20.9 (Designated Greenfield Area Policies)?

14. Does the proposed ZBA conform to the City of Brampton Official Plan (Office Consolidation September 2020) including, without limitation, policies:

15. • 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.3 (Sustainable City Structure)
16. • 3.2.5.1.1, to 3.2.5.1.5 (Gateway Hubs)
17. • 3.2.6.2, 3.2.6.3, 3.2.6.4, 3.2.6.6 (Intensification Corridors)
18. • 3.2.9 (North West Brampton Urban Development Area)
19. • 4.2 (b), 4.2.1.8 and 4.2.7.1 (Residential)
20. • 4.9.5.2 (Health Care Facilities)
21. • 4.10 (Cultural Heritage)
22. • 4.11.2.1.2, 4.11.2.1.6, 4.11.3, 4.11.3.1, 4.11.3.1.1, 4.11.3.1.2, 4.11.3.2, 4.11.3.2.3, 4.11.3.2.6, 4.11.3.4.3, 4.11.3.4.6 (Urban Design)
23. • 4.14.3.17 (Special Land Use Policy Area 17: Northwest Quadrant of Mississauga Road and Bovaird Drive)
24. • 14.15.5 (North West Brampton Urban Development Area)?

25. What weight, if any, should be given to the adopted, but under appeal, New City of Brampton Official Plan? If weight is to be assigned, does the proposal take into account the New City of Brampton Official Plan?

26. Does the proposed ZBA conform to the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan (SP 51), including, without limitation, policies:

• 5.2.1.1, 5.2.1.2, 5.2.2 (Mixed use)?

7. Is the introduction of a new “High Density Mixed-use” designation into the Mount Pleasant Secondary Plan (SP 51) consistent with the overall intent of the Secondary Plan?

8. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard to and are they properly informed by the policies contained in the Heritage Heights Secondary Plan (SP 52), including, without limitation, to policies:

• 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6 (Precinct Area Structure)

• 6.4.3, 6.4.4, and 6.4.5 (Major Institutional), and

• 8.4.1., 8.4.2., and 8.4.3 (Building Heights),

and the contemplated development and built form arising from these policies?

9. Does the Proposal provide an appropriate amount of office space to support current and future employment needs, particularly in light of its proximity to the potential Hospital site on Bovaird Drive?

10. Should the Proposal be required to proceed in phases, in order to preserve sufficient office space or the potential for sufficient office space, on site, should construction of the Hospital on Bovaird Drive be confirmed by 2030?

11. Is the Proposal compatible with the surrounding area?

12. Does the Proposal ensure an appropriate transition to the surrounding neighbourhood land uses including lands identified as a potential future hospital site on the south side of Bovaird Drive?

13. Does the Proposal ensure an appropriate streetscape along Bovaird Drive and Mississauga Road?

14. Is the proposed salvage and reuse of building materials of the existing heritage house on the property appropriate or should the conservation of the existing heritage occur through other means?

15. Does the proposed ZBA sufficiently regulate matters of built form including height, density, massing, scale, setbacks, stepbacks, lot coverage and landscaping having regard for the site, adjacent property and the character of the surrounding lands?

16. Does the Proposal have appropriate regard for City of Brampton Development Design Guidelines including the Draft Guidelines?

17. Are the requirements in the proposed OPA for a minimum of 4,850 m² of non-residential floor area and in the proposed ZBA for a minimum gross floor area of 2,400 m² of office use and a minimum gross floor area of 2,400 m² of other commercial use appropriate or should additional non-residential floor area be required?

18. What are the appropriate mechanisms to ensure the appropriate amount of non-residential space is provided?

19. Is the Holding (H) provision in the proposed ZBA that permits a reduction in the minimum amount of office appropriate?

20. Are any other Holding (H) provisions required in the proposed ZBA?

21. Are the form and content of the proposed OPA and ZBA acceptable?

22. Does the Proposal constitute good land use planning that is in the public interest?

Attachment 3 – Order of Evidence

1. Glen Rouge Developments Inc.

2. City of Brampton

3. Glen Rouge (Reply – if any).

Attachment 4 - 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.