BMR GP Inc. v. Blue Mountains (Town), 2025 CanLII 79638

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 07, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000647

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27

Appellant 1: BMR GP Inc.

Appellant 2: Georgian Triangle Development Institute

Appellant 3: Great Dale Manor Limited.

Appellant 4: NG Lora Bay Limited.

Description: Development Charges By-law No. 2024-29

Reference Number: By-Law No. 2024-29

Property Address: Town-wide

Municipality/UT: Town of the Blue Mountains

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000647

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000647

OLT Case Name: BMR GP Inc. v. Blue Mountains (Town)

Heard: July 31, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

BMR GP Inc. (“Appellant”)

Andrew Jeanrie

Georgian Triangle Development Institute (“Appellant”)

Meredith Baker

Great Dale Manor Limited (“Appellant”)

Robert Howe

NG Lora Bay Limited (“Appellant”)

Robert Howe

Town of The Blue Mountains (“TBM”)

Denise Baker

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY w. DANIEL BEST ON JULY 31, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) respecting Town-wide Appeals by the above listed Appellants, concerning the passing of Development Charges By-law No. 2024-29 by the Town of The Blue Mountains (“TBM”).

2The purpose of this CMC was to finalize the Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”) and set a date for the Merit Hearing.

3The Parties anticipate the length of the Merit Hearing based on the issues to be addressed is ten (10) days.

REQUESTS FOR STATUS

4No one attended the CMC seeking either Party or Participant status.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

5The Parties are aware that Tribunal-led mediation is available to the Parties should the need arise.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

6The Parties filed with the Tribunal a draft PO and IL on consent prior to the Hearing.

7Ms. Baker, Counsel for TBM, advised the Tribunal that a revised draft PO and IL will be circulated and forwarded to the Case Coordinator post-CMC for the consideration of the Tribunal.

NEXT STEPS

8The Tribunal directed TBM to submit a draft PO on consent on Friday, August 1, 2025. The Tribunal will review the draft PO and if approved, will govern the proceedings of the hearing.

9The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed which might assist in the fair, just, and expeditious resolution of this matter. The Parties indicated there were none.

10The Tribunal thanked all Counsel for their assistance on the matter.

11Having the benefit of receiving the submitted revised draft PO from TBM prior to the issuance of this Decision, and having examined the IL attached to the PO, the Tribunal deems the attached PO to be in of force and effect to govern the proceedings at the Hearing of the Merits scheduled to begin on Monday, March 23, 2026 at 10 a.m. – Thursday, April 2, 2026, inclusive and continuing on Wednesday, April 8, 2026 at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing. Any further changes to the PO will require the approval of the Tribunal.

12Parties are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013

Access Code: 660-145-013

13Parties 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

14Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. 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 Video Hearing to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the directions contained above in this Decision.

17The Procedural Order, appended to this Decision as Schedule 1, is approved and in force and effect.

18The Member is not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST

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 1

CASE NO(S). OLT-24-000647

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 14 of the Development Charges Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 27

Appellant 1: BMR GP Inc.

Appellant 2: Georgian Triangle Development Institute

Appellant 3: Great Dale Manor Limited.

Appellant 4: NG Lora Bay Limited.

Description: Development Charges By-law No. 2024-29

Reference Number: By-Law No. 2024-29

Property Address: Town-wide

Municipality/UT: Town of the Blue Mountains

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000647

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000647

OLT Case Name: BMR GP Inc. v. Blue Mountains (Town)

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 Monday, March 23, 2026, at 10:00 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. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

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.

8. 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 on or before Friday November 21, 2025 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 on or before Friday December 19, 2025, 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 Friday January 9, 2026.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. On or before Friday February 6, 2026, 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.

14. On or before Friday February 6, 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.

15. On or before Friday February 13, 2026 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before Friday February 27, 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.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Wednesday February 18, 2026, in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday February 27, 2026.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday March 13, 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.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically and if requested by the Tribunal, in hard copy. 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.

23. 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 KEY DATES

Date

Hearing Event

Friday November 21, 2025

Exchange of List of Witnesses

Friday December 19, 2025

Expert Witness Meeting

Friday January 9, 2026

Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues

Friday February 6, 2026

Exchange of Witness Statements and experts reports, participant statements (if any), and summoned witness outlines (if any)

Wednesday February 18, 2026

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

Friday February 13, 2026

Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required

Friday February 27, 2026

Exchange of Visual Evidence

Friday February 27, 2026

Filing of Joint Document Book

Friday March 13, 2026

Filing of Hearing Plan

Monday March 23, 2026

Hearing Commences

ATTACHMENT 2

PARTIES

1. Town of the Blue Mountains

WeirFoulds LLP Suite 201, 1320 Cornwall Road Oakville, Ontario L6J 7W5

Denise Baker 416-947-5090 dbaker@weirfoulds.com

Narmada Gunawardana 647-715-7117 ngunawardana@weirfoulds.com

2. BMR GP Inc.

Bennet Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place PO Box 130 Toronto, Ontario M5X 1A4

Andrew Jeanrie 416-777-4814 jeanriea@bennettjones.com

3. Georgian Tringle Development Institute

TMA Law Suite 2010, 25 Main Street West Hamilton, Ontario L8P 1H1

Jennifer Meader 905-529-3476 ext. 2740 jmeader@tmalaw.ca

4. Great Dale Manor Limited

Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre – West Tower Suite 3400, 333 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2S7

Robert Howe 416-597-5158 rhowe@goodmans.ca

5. NG Lora Bay Limited

Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre – West Tower Suite 3400, 333 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 2S7

Robert Howe 416-597-5158 rhowe@goodmans.ca

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

Great Dale Manor Limited and NG Lora Bay Limited

Growth Forecasts

1. Do the population forecasts in the Background Study, and/or the methodology used to calculate development charges for the various service categories, appropriately account for the increase in population to be accommodated in existing units?

2. Has the Background Study appropriately assessed the number of existing unserviced units and the population to be accommodated in such units? Why is there a discrepancy in the Background Study between the unserviced population shown for the water and wastewater conveyance systems (if they are aggregated for all service areas) compared to unserviced population shown for the water and wastewater treatment systems?

3. Is it reasonable for the Background Study to use a persons per unit factor of 1.5 to estimate the population growth in hotel and commercial resort units but a persons per unit factor of 2.0 to calculate the development charge rates for those units?

Reserve Funds

4. Are the Reserve Fund balances used in the Background Study accurate, given that they appear to be materially lower than the balances in the 2023 Treasurer’s Statement for the Town for several services?

Library Service

5. Given that the new library facility proposed to be funded by the development charge will double the amount of existing library space in the Town, but the total non-seasonal population of the Town will increase by about only 40%, and that the Blue Mountain Public Library Master Facilities Plan, January 11, 2019 states that additional library space is required in the Town to serve the existing population of the Town, why has a benefit to existing development allocation not been provided for the new library facility?

Parks and Recreation

6. Is the inclusion of the land area for 125 Peel Street in the historical inventory for Parks and Recreation reasonable and in accordance with the Act, given that the land is not currently used as a park and is providing no service to the residents of the Town?

7. Is the inclusion in the historical inventory for Parks and Recreation of an assumed replacement cost value of $1,430,000 per hectare for all parkland and $715,000 per hectare for all open space and natural feature land reasonable and in accordance with the Act?

8. Has the Town established that the $80 million in capital costs for “provision for new indoor recreation space” in the Parks and Recreation capital program in the Background Study is required to meet a need for new services arising from development within the Town, and has the Town made a commitment to meet that need, as required by the Act? How is the Town intending to fund the $50 million share of that space allocated to “Grants/Subsidies/Other Recoveries”?

9. Has the Town established that the $717,000 in capital costs for “Parkland Development” and “Waterfront Development” in the Parks and Recreation capital program in the Background Study is required to meet a need for new services arising from development within the Town, and has the Town made a commitment to meet that need, as required by the Act?

10. Has the Town established that the $990,000 in total capital costs for “Tennis Court Construction/Pickle Ball” in the Parks and Recreation capital program in the Background Study is required to meet a need for new services arising from development within the Town, and has the Town made a commitment to meet that need, as required by the Act?

11. Has the Town established that the $450,000 in capital costs for “Additional Pavilion/Washrooms” in the Parks and Recreation capital program in the Background Study is required to meet a need for new services arising from development within the Town, and has the Town made a commitment to meet that need, as required by the Act?

12. Has the Town established that the $358,000 and $215,000 in capital costs for “Trail and Trailhead Development” and “Trail Development”, respectively, in the Parks and Recreation capital program in the Background Study are required to meet a need for new services arising from development within the Town, and has the Town made a commitment to meet that need, as required by the Act?

13. Are the new parking facilities at “Riverwalk” included in the Parks and Recreation capital program in the Background Study an eligible service that can be funded by a development charge? If so, has the Town established that the $600,000 in total capital costs for “Additional Parking at Riverwalk” in the Parks and Recreation capital program in the Background Study is required to meet a need for new services arising from development within the Town over the 15 year study period? Do these parking facilities benefit existing development, and why is there no allocation of a benefit to existing development share? Has the Town previously collected development charges into its reserve funds for this parking facility that are not accounted for in the calculations in the Background Study?

Road and Related

14. Has the Town established that the road improvement projects included in the capital program in the Background Study, which do not add capacity to the road system, are required because of increased needs for service arising from development, and are therefore eligible to be funded by a development charge? Has the Town completed an appropriate technical justification (transportation master plan, road needs study, or other transportation analysis) that demonstrates that each of the road improvement projects in the Background Study are required because of increased needs for service arising from development?

15. Are any of the road improvement projects included in the capital program in the Background Study state of good repair projects, or road improvement projects designed to address existing deficiencies or to meet minimum Town engineering standards or other improved road quality standards, that are not required because of the servicing needs of development, and therefore are not eligible to be funded by the development charge?

16. Would any of the road improvement projects in the Background Study be warranted regardless of development, and therefore are not eligible to be funded by development charges because they would not require the Town to incur increased capital costs because of increased needs for service arising from development?

17. Does the roads capital program in the Background Study include any projects that have already been constructed by the Town?

18. Has the Town included road improvement projects in the capital program in the Background Study that are more appropriately categorized as local services, and which are therefore not eligible to be funded by a development charge?

19. If any road improvement projects in the capital program in the Background Study are eligible to be funded by a development charge, as they are required because of increased needs for service arising from development and are not local services, has the Town appropriately recognized the extent to which such improvements benefit existing development, as required by the Act?

20. If any road improvement projects in the capital program in the Background Study are eligible to be funded by a development charge, has the Town appropriately recognized the extent to which such improvements benefit post period development? Is there any reasonable basis for the manner in which the Town identified the scope of road improvement projects required for “Build-Out” of the community, or how the “Build-Out” population and employment projections in the Background Study relate to the need for the road program in the Background Study?

21. Has the Town established that the capital costs identified in the Background Study as Proposed Active Transportation Projects are required because of an increase in need for services arising from development within the Town, and has the Town made a commitment to meet that need, as required by the Act? Has the Town appropriately recognized the extent to which such projects benefit existing development, as required by the Act? Has the Town appropriately accounted for contributions to the costs of the projects that are available from other sources?

Water Services

22. Has the Town established that the Water Operations facility in the capital program in the Background Study is required because of increased needs for service arising from development? If so, has an appropriate allocation to benefit to existing development been made?

23. Are the following water distribution projects in the capital program for the Lora Bay service area in the Background Study either local services or being installed to service existing development, and therefore not eligible to be funded by the development charge:

(a) watermain on Sunset Boulevard West from Christie Beach Road to 39th Sideroad; and

(b) a portion of the watermain on Christie Beach from Sunset Boulevard to 39th Sideroad.

If these projects are required because of increased needs for service arising from development, and are not local services, has the Background Study made an appropriate allocation of these services to benefit to existing development?

24. Has the Background Study inadvertently omitted from the development charge calculations some water distribution project costs required for the Castle Glen service area, specifically the Castle Glen share of Craigleith Water Distribution projects and the Castle Glen share of Craigleith Water Storage and Pumping Station projects?

25. Has the Background Study appropriately accounted for grant funding, including from the Ontario Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, that can be used to fund increases in need for water services?

Wastewater Services

26. In assessing the need for wastewater treatment services that can be funded by the development charge, has the Town appropriately accounted for the uncommitted capacity in existing facilities that can be used to service new development, as required by the Act? Has the Town appropriately estimated the demand for new wastewater services attributable to development to determine the capacity required to service new development? Is the additional Craigleith wastewater treatment plant expansion required at all to service the forecast “build-out” development? Is the complete multi-phase Thornbury wastewater treatment plant expansion required to service the forecast “build-out” development?

27. If some portion of the wastewater treatment capacity proposed to be funded in the Background Study is required to service “built-out” development, has the Town made an appropriate allocation to post period benefit to account for the capacity that will be available in the Craigleith and/or Thornbury wastewater treatments plants to service development beyond the “build-out” forecasts of population and employment?

28. Has the Town made an appropriate allocation to benefit to existing development to account for existing development that can be serviced by the wastewater treatment capacity proposed to be funded in the Background Study?

29. Has any portion of the capital costs of the Thornbury wastewater treatment plant expansion that has already been funded, or that can be funded by reserve funds, been appropriately accounted for?

30. Are the following wastewater collection projects in the capital program for the Lora Bay service area in the Background Study either local services or being installed to service existing development, and therefore not eligible to be funded by the development charge:

(a) sewer on Sunset Boulevard West from Christie Beach Road to 39th Sideroad, and

(b) sewer on 39th Sideroad from Christie Beach Road to West Ridge Drive.

If these projects are required because of increased needs for service arising from development, and are not local services, has the Background Study made an appropriate allocation of these services to benefit to existing development?

31. What is the service area associated with the Christie Beach Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemain? Is this project either a local service or being installed to service existing development, and therefore not eligible to be funded by the development charge? If this project is required because of increased needs for service attributable to development, and is not a local service, and can be funded by development charges, has the Background Study made an appropriate allocation of this project to benefit to existing development? If this project is required because of increased needs for service arising from development, and are not local services, has the Background Study made an appropriate allocation of post period benefit?

32. Has the By-law imposed wastewater collection development charges for the Castle Glen service area that are incorrect, as they are not consistent with the development charges calculated in the Background Study based on the detailed capital cost calculations in Table D.9.

33. Has the Background Study appropriately accounted for grant funding, including from the Ontario Housing-Enabling Water Systems Fund, and can be used to fund increases in need for wastewater services?

Water Distribution, Wastewater Collection and Roads Benchmark Costs

34. Has the Town appropriately estimated the capital costs of the roads projects, linear water projects, linear wastewater projects in the Background Study, including in respect of the application of appropriate unit rates and contingencies? Is there any redundancy of cost estimate components between the cost estimates of any road project, linear water project and/or linear wastewater project that involve the same road segment?

BMR GP Inc.

General

To avoid unnecessary overlap in the issues lists, in addition to the issues set out below BMR also raises issues 1, 4-22, 25, 26, 29, 33, and 34 raised in the issues list of Great Del Manor Limited and NG Lora Bay Limited.

1. Is it reasonable for the Background Study to calculate development charge rates for hotel and commercial resort units using a persons per unit factor of 2.0, whereas it used a persons per unit factor of 1.5 to estimate the population growth in such units? Should the development charge rates for hotel and commercial resort units be consistent with apartment units, based on a persons per unit factor of 1.5?

2. Is it reasonable to treat all of the uses that fall under “other multiples/hotel” the same as residential units when allocating costs for all Municipal Services? Is it reasonable that hotel units would trigger a growth related capital cost for library services or for parks & recreation? Are commercial uses such as hotel more appropriately treated like non-residential uses with respect to such charges?

3. Is it reasonable to lump “other multiples” (which are defined as residential buildings, including hotels, other than single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings or apartment dwellings - and would therefore include everything from row housing to rooming houses) as all having the same population per unit factor (being that of a row house)?

4. Given the broad definition of “other multiples”, are the development charge allocations to many of the potential unit types in the “other multiples” category consistent with the forecast in the background study?

Population Growth

5. Has the Background Study appropriately identified the population growth that is driven by new development from any population growth that may be trigger by increased occupancy (including seasonal to year round) and accounted appropriately for the services and infrastructure that is triggered not by new development but by existing buildings?

Water Services

6. Are all of the water distribution projects in the capital program in the Background Study for the Craigleith service area appropriately identified as required to service new development? Has the Town included projects in this capital program that are more appropriately categorized as local services, based on the Town’s Local Service Policy included as Appendix H to the Background Study, and which are therefore not eligible to be funded by a development charge? If the projects are eligible to be funded by the development charge, does the Town’s approach of estimating population in existing unserviced units reasonably assess the extent to which such projects will service existing development?

Wastewater Services

7. If they are required to service “built-out” development, has the Town made an appropriate allocation to post period benefit to account for the capacity that will be available in the Craigleith and/or Thornbury wastewater treatments plants to service development beyond the “build-out” forecasts of population and employment?

8. Are all of the water wastewater collection projects in the capital program in the Background Study for the Craigleith service area appropriately identified as required to service new development? Has the Town included projects in this capital program that are more appropriately categorized as local services, based on the Town’s Local Service Policy included as Appendix H to the Background Study, and which are therefore not eligible to be funded by a development charge? If the projects are eligible to be funded by the development charge, does the Town’s approach of estimating population in existing unserviced units reasonably assess the extent to which such projects will service existing development?

Services Related to a Highway Public Works and Roads and Related

9. Have the BTE and post period benefit been appropriately determined with regards to services related to a highway?

Georgian Triangle Development Institute (GTDI)

General

In addition to the issues set out below, GTDI adopts all of the issues listed by Great Del Manor Limited and NG Lora Bay Limited, other than Issues 6, 24, and 36. GTDI also adopts Issues 5 to 9 of the issues listed by BMR GP Inc. ‘

Growth Forecast (General)

1. Are the base 2006, 2011, 2016 and 2021 Census estimates of Census Population, Seasonal Population and Adjusted Population reasonable?

2. Do the 2024 DCBS Growth Projections align with the Town and County Official Plan Projections?

Services Related to a Highway

3. Are the quality standard costs (replacement costs) applied to Services Related to a Highway in the determination of the Level of Service fair, reasonable, and in accordance with the Development Charges Act?

Water Supply and Treatment Capital Program

4. Are any of the Area Specific water supply and treatment projects for Thornbury West Service Area properly categorized as Local Services and not DC-eligible?

Sewage Treatment Capital Program

5. Are any of the Area Specific wastewater collection projects for the Thornbury West Service Area, the Lora Bay Service Area, or the Camperdown Service Area properly categorized as Local Services and not DC-eligible?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Town of the Blue Mountains

2. Great Dale Manor Limited and NG Lora Bay Limited., BMR GP Inc., Georgian Tringle Development Institute,

3. Town of the Blue Mountains, in reply