Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 11, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000231
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Nilaben Patel
Applicant/Appellant: Parth Patel
Applicant/Appellant: Parth Sejal Patel
Applicant/Appellant: Patel Land and Developments Limited
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a mid-rise office building to a maximum height of 10-storeys, with commercial space on the ground floor.
Reference Number: OZS-2023-0007
Property Address: 8383 Mississauga Road
Municipality: Brampton
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000231
OLT Case Name: Patel Land and Developments Limited v. Brampton (City)
Heard: July 24, 2025, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Patel Land and Development Limited, Parth Patel, Nilaben Patel, and Parth Sejal Patel (“Applicants”)
Steven C. Ferri Austin Ray
City of Brampton (“City”)
Matthew Rea
Tesch Development Inc. (“TDI”)
Rob Howe
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS ON JULY 24, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicants seek to develop a site municipally known as 8383 Mississauga Road, in the City (“Subject Property”), to construct a 10-storey commercial building. To this end, the Applicants filed a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to rezone the Subject Property from Agricultural (A) to Office Commercial (OC). The Appeal is brought pursuant to section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, due to the City’s failure to decide within the statutory timeframe.
2On July 24, 2025, the Tribunal held its first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to organize the Appeal, address status requests, and establish next steps in this proceeding.
TITLE OF PROCEEDING
3The Tribunal directed that the Title of Proceeding be amended to add Parth Patel, Nilaben Patel, and Parth Sejal Patel as Applicants, as they too filed the Appeal on February 10, 2025, as owners of the Subject Property.
NOTICE
4There were no issues raised with service of Notice of the CMC, and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service of Notice of the CMC sworn on July 3, 2025, which was marked as Exhibit 1 to this CMC.
STATUS REQUEST
5The Tribunal received a written request for Party status from TDI. It owns the lands abutting to the north and south of the Subject Property, which are zoned Residential Townhouse (RE3). TDI has concerns with respect to appropriate interface between its lands and the Subject Property, the location of parking, the location of access, and cost sharing for local services installed by TDI as the developer of the larger subdivision. TDI intends to present evidence from one or more experts to assist the Tribunal, while being efficient and avoiding duplication. The Applicants and the City consented to adding TDI as a Party. Given that there are reasonable grounds to add TDI as a Party, the Tribunal directed that TDI be added as a Party.
6Krithika Kanagaraj, a local resident, orally sought Participant status. Given that the Parties did not object, the Tribunal directed that Krithika Kanagaraj be added as a Participant. However, Ms. Kanagaraj is directed to file a Participant Status Request Form in advance of the Merit Hearing.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SETTLEMENT
7Counsel for the Parties advised that they will be seeking Tribunal assisted mediation, provided that such mediation does not delay the Appeal.
8The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal, as soon as possible, of any settlement, and are encouraged to narrow the issues.
NEXT STEPS
9A draft Procedural Order was provided by the Applicants to the Tribunal prior to the CMC, including an Issues List. The Parties are in agreement with the content of the draft Procedural Order.
10The Parties submitted that the Tribunal should set a date for a seven-day Merit Hearing early in 2026. Having heard from the Parties, the Tribunal directed that a seven-day Merit Hearing be set for Monday, February 23, 2026. The Tribunal will not sit on Monday, March 2, 2026.
11The Tribunal also directed that the Parties are to file a complete draft Procedural Order by Thursday, July 31, 2025.
12The Merit Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, February 23, 2026 at 10 a.m.
13Individuals 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://meet.goto.com/348282861
Access code: 348-282-861
14Individuals 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
15Individuals 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 in to an audio-only telephone line: +1-647-497-9373 or (toll-free) +1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 348-282-861.
16Individuals 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
17THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:
a. Its directions in this Decision; and
b. The Procedural Order, including the Issues List, attached as Attachment A to this Order, is approved.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS
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.
Attachment A
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000231
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Nilaben Patel
Applicant/Appellant: Parth Patel
Applicant/Appellant: Parth Sejal Patel
Applicant/Appellant: Patel Land and Developments Limited
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of a mid-rise office building to a maximum height of 10-storeys, with commercial space on the ground floor.
Reference Number: OZS-2023-0007
Property Address: 8383 Mississauga Road
Municipality: Brampton
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000231
OLT Case Name: Patel Land and Developments Limited v. Brampton (City)
PROCEDURAL ORDER
Organization of the Hearing
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.
The video hearing will begin on February 23, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. The Tribunal will not sit on Monday, March 2, 2026.
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is seven (7) 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 parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachments 2 and 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.
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 witnesses on or before November 25, 2025, and in accordance with paragraph 23 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 expert credentials of a witness shall do so on or before December 5, 2025.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before December 15, 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 December 19, 2025.
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 January 19, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties, the participants, and to the OLT Case Co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before January 19, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and the OLT Case Co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 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 February 18, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
The Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT Case Co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence before February 9, 2026.
On or before February 18, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties, the participants, and the OLT Case Co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 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 February 18, 2026.
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 February 18, 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 during the hearing.
All filings shall be submitted electronically and 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.
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 DATES
DATE
EVENT
November 25, 2025
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
December 5, 2025
Last date to challenge qualifications of expert witnesses
December 15, 2025
Last date of Expert Witness Meetings
December 19, 2025
Agreed Upon Statement of Facts
January 19, 2025
Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
February 9, 2026
Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
February 18, 2026
Submission of Joint Document Book
February 18, 2026
Exchange of Visual Evidence
February 18, 2026
Notification to Tribunal if all hearing dates required
February 18, 2026
Hearing Plan
February 23, 2026
Hearing commences
ATTACHMENT 2
LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS
PARTIES
Patel Land and Developments Limited
City of Brampton
Tesch Development Inc.
Participants
- Krithika Kanagaraj - krithibe@gmail.com
ATTACHMENT 3
ISSUES LIST
NOTE: THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN ISSUE ON THIS ISSUES LIST DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL PARTIES AGREE THAT SUCH AN ISSUE IS APPROPRIATE OR RELEVANT FOR 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. THE IDENTIFICATION OF AN ISSUE BY A PARTY INDICATES THAT PARTY’S INTENT TO TENDER EVIDENCE AND/OR MAKE SUBMISSIONS ON IT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF FAIRLY IDENTIFYING TO THE OTHER PARTIES THE CASE THEY NEED TO MEET.
City of Brampton
Does the application represent good planning and is it in the public interest?
Does the application have regard for sections 2(h) and 2(r) of the Planning Act?
Is the application consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement including section 2.8.1(1)(e)?
Does the application conform with Official Plan policies including:
a. Brampton 2006 Official Plan as amended including sections 3.2.6.2, 3.2.6.6, 4.4.2.22, 4.11.3.2, 4.11.3.2.3, 4.11.3.2.5, 4.11.3.2.6, 4.11.3.2.7, 5.35.2, 5.35.4;
b. Brampton 2023 Official Plan as amended including sections 2.2.8.13, 3.1.1.9, 3.1.1.10, 3.1.1.11, 3.1.1.13, 3.1.1.48, 3.1.1.50;
c. Bram West Secondary Plan as amended including sections 3.2.12, 3.3 3.5.15, 3.5.16; and
d. The Credit Manor Heights 40-1 Block Plan OP06-25, adopted as By-law 207-2009, including sections 4.0, 5.2, 5.10?
Does the application align with the intent of the Credit Manor Heights Block 40-1 design guidelines including sections 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.7?
Does the submitted tertiary plan facilitate orderly, compatible and co-ordinated development with appropriate transition to surrounding lands?
Is the form of the draft zoning by-law amendment acceptable? Would different zoning performance standards, more aligned with the R3E-6-2026 zoning for abutting lands, better integrate the proposed office use into the planned area context?
Is the traffic impact study satisfactory including with respect to level of service, queuing and access?
Has the applicant satisfied City requirements with respect to urban design brief, sun/shadow study and wind study (CFD)? If not, should a holding provision be imposed to require completion of those studies as a condition of zoning?
Tesch Development Inc.
Is the proposed Office Commercial zoning appropriate for the subject lands, particularly the portion of the lands adjacent to Sky Harbour Drive? Should the zoning of the Subject Lands along Sky Harbour Drive be consistent with the residential zoning of the lands abutting the north and south of the Subject Lands?
Is the proposed parking lot/driveway interface with Sky Harbour Drive, a residential street, appropriate from an urban design and streetscape perspective? Is this proposed condition in conformity with the urban design policies of the Brampton Official Plan and Bram West Secondary Plan, including the Sub Area 40-1 Block Plan? Is it consistent with the Credit Manor Height Community Design Guidelines?
Does the proposed height and density of the proposed development provide for an appropriate transition to the existing and proposed low-rise residential and live/work development fronting on Sky Harbour Drive?
Does the proposed development represent orderly and coordinated development that appropriately accounts for the development of adjacent lands? Has the applicant proposed an appropriate tertiary plan for the block containing the subject lands, with sufficient detail to ensure development that is appropriately coordinated with adjacent development, in accordance with the policies of the Brampton Official Plan and the Bram West Secondary Plan?
Has the proposed development appropriately considered potential impacts on adjacent properties, including shadow impacts?
Is the proposed access to the Subject Lands appropriate? Does the proposed development negatively impact the provision of functional access to and from properties to the north and south?
Should the zoning by-law be subject to holding provisions to ensure that appropriate coordinated access is achieved for the subject lands and the undeveloped properties to the north and south?
Should the zoning by-law be subject to holding provisions to ensure that the applicant executes a Cost Sharing Agreement or otherwise makes satisfactory arrangements with those landowners that have installed local services that benefit the subject lands?
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
Patel Land and Developments Limited
City of Brampton
Tesch Development Inc.
Patel Land and Developments Limited (Reply)
ATTACHMENT 5
CONTACT INFORMATION FOR PARTIES
- Patel Land and Developments Limited
Steve Ferri Loopstra Nixon LLP 100 New Park Place Suite 303 Vaughan, ON L4K 0H9 sferri@LN.law
Austin Ray Loopstra Nixon LLP 100 New Park Place Suite 303 Vaughan, ON L4K 0H9 aray@LN.law
- City of Brampton
Matthew Rea Legal Counsel Real Estate and Planning Law Corporation of the City of Brampton 2 Wellington Street West Brampton, ON L6Y 4R2 matthew.rea@brampton.ca
- Tesch Development Inc.
Robert Howe Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 rhowe@goodmans.ca