# Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
**ISSUE DATE:** August 21, 2025
**CASE NO(S).:** OLT-25-000408
**PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER** subsection 22(7) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
**Appellant:** David Kittmer and Lloy Wylie
**Subject:** Application to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of application
**Description:** To permit undersized agricultural lot area to facilitate future application for consent to sever
**Reference Number:** OP 24-15-5
**Property Address:** 963452 96 Rd
**Municipality/UT:** Zorra/Oxford
**OLT Case No:** OLT-25-000408
**OLT Lead Case No:** OLT-25-000408
**OLT Case Name:** Kittmer v Zorra (Township)
**PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER** section 34(11) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
**Appellant:** David Kittmer and Lloy Wylie
**Subject:** Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
**Description:** To permit undersized agricultural lot area to facilitate future application for consent to sever
**Reference Number:** ZN 5-24-11
**Property Address:** 963452 96 Rd
**Municipality/UT:** Zorra/Oxford
**OLT Case No:** OLT-25-000376
**OLT Lead Case No:** OLT-25-000408
**Heard:** August 11, 2025 by Video Hearing
**APPEARANCES:**
**Parties**
**Counsel/Representative\***
David Kittmer
Lloy Wylie
Self-Represented\*
Township of Zorra
County of Oxford
Colin Léger
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
## DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
### INTRODUCTION
[1] This event was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) relating to the appeals filed by David Kittmer and Lloy Wylie (“Appellants”) pertaining to the lands municipally known as 963452 96 Road (“Subject Lands”), in the Township of Zorra (“Township”), and in the County of Oxford (“County”).
[2] Mr. Kittmer and Dr. Wylie applied for an amendment to the County’s Official Plan (“County OP”) and an amendment to the Township’s Zoning By-law (“Township ZBL”) to permit the creation of a new agricultural lot having a minimum lot area of approximately 8.2 hectares for the Subject Lands, whereas the County OP and Township ZBL require a minimum lot size of 30 hectares.
[3] The Council for the Township denied the Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and the Council for the County refused the Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) stating that the amendments are not consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”), are not consistent with the intent and purpose of the County OP, and are not in keeping with the Township ZBL.
[4] No Participant or Party status requests were received by the Tribunal.
[5] The Tribunal marked the Affidavit of Service of the CMC as Exhibit 1. There were no issues with the notice, and as such, no further notice is required.
[6] The Appellants intend to obtain legal Counsel for the Merit Hearing and will inform the Township/County and Tribunal once determined.
### DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER, ISSUES LIST AND LENGTH OF HEARING
[7] Prior to the commencement of the CMC, Colin Léger, Counsel for the Township and County provided the Tribunal with the first iteration of the Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) and Issues List (“IL”).
[8] The Appellants communicated that three additional policies are to be included on the IL: (1) PPS s. 4.2; (2) PPS s. 4.3; and (3) County OP s 3.2.
[9] Mr. Léger stated that the Township/County intents to call one witness, in land use planning, during the Hearing and suggested that the Hearing would require one or possibly at most two days.
[10] The Appellants communicated that they intend to call approximately a dozen witnesses to form their case. The area of expertise of the witnesses range from biologist, ecologist, hydrologist, land use planning, Indigenous matters, community health, forrester and arborist. The Appellants suggest that a five-day Hearing would be sufficient.
[11] Mr. Léger argued that the OPA and ZBA are related to a future severance, which is smaller than permitted for the Subject Lands and that the applications do not relate to natural heritage, biodiversity, etc. He went on to state that the OPA and ZBA are not related to a large development on natural heritage.
[12] The Appellants communicated that the Subject Lands were previously considered an environmentally sensitive area and is a “unique” property. They stated that they intend to present letters of opinion from the proposed list of witnesses regarding the Appeals.
[13] The Tribunal explained to the Parties the process leading up to a Merit Hearing and the format of the Merit Hearing. Following that discussion, the Appellants then communicated that they understand and will have witnesses present for the Merit Hearing.
[14] The Appellants communicated that there are issues on the IL that each of their witnesses will be providing opinion evidence on.
[15] Mr. Léger and the Appellants were directed to work collaboratively to update the DPO based on the Merit Hearing scheduled below and to include the additional issues in the IL and provide the DPO and IL to the Tribunal on consent by Thursday, August 14, 2025. The Tribunal advised that if the DPO and IL was not received by the deadline, the scheduled Merit Hearing dates would be released and to contact the Case Coordinator to schedule an additional CMC.
[16] Subsequent to the conclusion of the CMC, the Tribunal received correspondence form Mr. Léger and the Appellants on August 14, 2025. Mr. Léger provided the Tribunal with a revised DPO and IL that was not agreed to by the Appellants. The Appellants then requested an extension to supply the DPO and IL by Wednesday, August 20, 2025, to allow their Counsel to review the document, who was “out of town” at the time. The Tribunal granted the extension.
[17] On August 20, 2025, the Appellants supplied the Case Coordinator with a revised DPO and IL, added page numbers, provided more details to the IL to provide verbiage on what the policy sections refer to, and corrected a policy numbering error. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Léger communicated to the Tribunal that the recent revised DPO and IL was not provided to the Township for review prior to submission to the Tribunal. Mr. Léger stated that the Township has no concerns with the changes with the one exception of the added verbiage to the Township IL and provided the Tribunal with a revised DPO and IL acceptable to the Township.
[18] The additional wording supplied by the Appellant to issue 2.a) is “s. 4.3.1.2; General Policies for Agriculture: prime agricultural areas and specialty crop areas”, whereas the Township requests that only “s.4.3.1.2” be stated.
[19] The Appellant responded that the policy is the same and that the added wording is to “make it easier to follow for clarity”.
[20] The Tribunal reviewed the two final versions of the IL. The Tribunal finds that the added words by the Appellant to the Township IL is not necessary and furthermore not agreeable to the Township. The Tribunal finds that the Procedural Order (“PO”) and IL supplied by the Township is acceptable and attached the PO, including the IL to this Order. The PO shall govern the Proceedings leading up to and including the Hearing of the Merits.
### SCHEDULING THE MERIT HEARING
[21] Following a lengthy discussion regarding the length of time required for the Hearing based on the number of witnesses being called, the Tribunal scheduled a five-day Hearing to ensure adequate time for the Parties to present their case.
[22] The Tribunal directed the Parties to update the Tribunal as outlined in the PO if not all of the Hearing dates are required.
[23] The five-day Merit Hearing will commence on Monday, November 3, 2025, at 10 a.m., by video hearing as outlined below.
[24] Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: [https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541](https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541)
Access code: 638-422-541
[25] 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](https://global.gotomeeting.com/install) or a web application is available: [https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html](https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html)
[26] 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) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 638-422-541.
[27] 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.
### ORDER
[28] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that a Hearing on the Merits is scheduled for five days commencing on November 3, 2025, at 10 a.m. by video hearing as set out above.
[29] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order included as Schedule 1 of this Order shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Hearing of the Merits for this matter.
[30] No further notice will be given, and the Member is not seized of this matter.
“Kurtis Smith”
Kurtis Smith
Member
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: [www.olt.gov.on.ca](http://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
**ISSUE DATE:** CASE NO.: OLT-25-000408
**PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER** subsection 22(7) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
**Appellant:** David Kittmer and Lloy Wylie
**Subject:** Application to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of application
**Description:** To permit undersized agricultural lot area to facilitate future application for consent to sever
**Reference Number:** OP 24-15-5
**Property Address:** 963452 96 Rd
**Municipality:** Zorra/Oxford
**OLT Case No.:** OLT-25-000408
**OLT File No.:** OLT-25-000408
**OLT Case Name:** Kittmer v Zorra (Township)
**PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER** subsection 34(11) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html), R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
**Appellant:** David Kittmer and Lloy Wylie
**Subject:** Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application
**Description:** To permit undersized agricultural lot area to facilitate future application for consent to sever
**Reference Number:** ZN 5-24-11
**Property Address:** 963452 96 Rd
**Municipality:** Zorra/Oxford
**OLT Case No.:** OLT-25-000408
**OLT File No.:** OLT-25-000408
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 November 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m..
3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is five 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 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).
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.
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](https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/video-hearing/), 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 September 2, 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 September 9, 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 September 15, 2025
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 September 19, 2025, 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 September 19, 2025, 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 September 29, 2025, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
16. On or before September 29, 2025, 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 September 29, 2025 and 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 October 24, 2025.
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](https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/lpat-process/hearing-plans/) with the Tribunal on or before October 27, 2025 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 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.
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.
BEFORE:
Name of Member:
Date:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
### Summary of Dates
**DATE**
**EVENT**
September 2, 2025
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
September 9, 2025
Experts meeting by this date
September 15, 2025
Agreed Statement of Facts
September 19, 2025
Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
September 29, 2025
Date to let Tribunal know if all hearing dates are required
September 29, 2025
Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
September 29, 2025
Exchange of Visual Evidence
October 24, 2025
Joint Document Book
October 27, 2025
Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
November 3, 2025
Hearing commences
## Attachment 1
### List of Parties and Participants
**Parties:**
**Applicant/Appellant**
David Kittmer and Dr. Lloy Wylie
[dkittmer@yahoo.com](mailto:dkittmer@yahoo.com)
**Township of Zorra & County of Oxford**
Garrod Pickfield LLP
9 Norwich Street West
Guelph, ON N1H 2G8
Colin Léger
Tel: 519.837.0500
Email: [cleger@garrodpickfield.ca](mailto:cleger@garrodpickfield.ca)
## Attachment 2
### Issues List
**County of Oxford and the Township of Zorra**
**OLT Case Nos.:** OLT-25-000408
**Municipal File Nos.:** OP24-15-5 & ZN5-24-11
**Property:** 963452 Road 96
Note: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which the issues are appropriate, within the jurisdiction of the OLT, or relevant to the determination at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.
**Township/County Issues**
**Provincial Law, Policy and Guidance**
1. Would approval of the proposed amendments to the Oxford County Official Plan and the Township of Zorra Zoning By-law have sufficient regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in [Section 2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html), in particular the following sub-section:
a) (b) the protection of the agricultural resources of the Province?
2. Are the proposed amendments to the Oxford County Official Plan and the Township of Zorra Zoning By-law consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 in particular the following sub-section:
a) s. 4.3.1.2;
b) s. 4.3.3 – Agriculture (Lot Creation and Lot Adjustments)?
**County of Oxford Official Plan**
3. Would approval of the proposed amendment to the Oxford County Official and Township of Zorra Zoning By-law conform to the policies of the County of Oxford Official Plan, in particular the following policies:
a) s. 3.1.1 – Goal for the Agricultural Reserve Policies;
b) s. 3.1.2 – Strategic Approach;
c) s. 3.1.4.2 – Agricultural Lot Sizes;
d) s. 3.1.4.2.4 – Creation of Agricultural Lots and Agricultural Lot Additions;
e) s. 10.3.4 – Consents (Severance)?
**Applicant/Appellant Issues**
4. Is the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS, 2024), specifically:
a) Subsection 4.1 Natural Heritage
b) Subsection 4.2 Water
c) Subsection 4.3 Agriculture, including subsection 4.3.3.1 (a)
d) Subsection 5.2 Natural Hazards
5. Is the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment consistent with the County of Oxford Official Plan, specifically:
a) Subsections 3.1, Agricultural Land Resource
b) Subsections 3.1.4, Policies for Agricultural Uses in the Agricultural Reserve
c) Subsections 3.1.4.4.2 Creation of Farm Parcels
d) Section 3.2, Environmental Resource Policies
i. including subsections 3.2.4.1.1 Environmental Protection Plan
## Attachment 3
### Order of Evidence
David Kittmer, Applicant/Appellant
Township of Zorra & County of Oxford
David Kittmer, in reply
## Attachment to Sample Procedural Order
**Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:**
A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.
NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.
A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.
Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.
Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
**Additional Information**
A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See [Rule 13](https://olt.gov.on.ca/about-olt/law-policy/) on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.
The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
* direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
* direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
* cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
* re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
* another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.
minicounsel