Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 25, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000361
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Guelph Watson Holdings Inc.
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 106
Description: Downtown Secondary Plan
Reference Number: OPA 106
Property Address: City-Wide
Municipality/UT: City of Guelph/Wellington County
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000361
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000361
OLT Case Name: Guelph Watson Holdings Inc. v. Guelph (City)
Heard: August 22, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Guelph Watson Holdings Inc.
N. Mares
T. Halinski (in absentia)
City of Guelph
I. White
A. Thornton (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON AUGUST 22, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in relation to an appeal by Guelph Watson Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”) concerning the adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 106 (“OPA 106”) by the City of Guelph (“City”). OPA 106 proposes to amend the City’s Official Plan to revise permitted building heights in the Downtown Secondary Plan area.
2On April 8, 2025, City Council passed By-law Number (2025)-21066 adopting OPA 106. Other than the May 5, 2025 Notice of Appeal (“NoA”) from the Appellant, who owns of the property municipally known as 115 Watson Parkway North (“Subject Lands”), no other appeals of OPA 106 were filed.
3The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service, dated July 7, 2025, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given, and as such, no further notice will be required. In response to the Notice, there were no written requests for status and no individuals appeared at the CMC seeking status of any kind. As such, the appeal will proceed with the involvement of the Appellant and the City only.
SCOPING AND PARTIAL APPROVAL
Background
4The grounds set out in the Appellant’s NoA are as follows:
While the stated intention of OPA 106 is to implement the findings of the Downtown Building Heights Study to permit revised building heights within the Downtown Secondary Plan area, the amendments to Section 8.9 of the Official Plan impact sites City-wide, ostensibly including the Subject Lands.
Furthermore, in our submission, policies 8.9.1 (ii) and (iii) of OPA 106 lack clarity when read together. Policy 8.9.1 (ii) sets maximum podium height that “shall generally range between 2 to 6 storeys” and Policy 8.9.1 (iii) requires a stepback along the front façade that “should generally fall between the second and sixth storeys.” The language of these policies should be revised to clarify whether the stepback in (iii) establishes the podium for the building introduced in (ii). Furthermore, policy (iii) is prescriptive in its requirement to incorporate a stepback for tall buildings, which prevents flexibility in building design on a site-by-site basis. This prescriptive policy is inappropriate for the Official Plan as it does not allow for context-specific building design without the need for an amendment to the Official Plan, and therefore may be more appropriate for Urban Design Guidelines.
Based on the foregoing, Guelph Watson hereby appeals OPA 106, including but not limited to the specific policies highlighted above and any policy related to the concerns raised herein, pursuant to subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act.
At the time of the appeal of OPA 106, the Appellant had submitted, and was awaiting a decision on, an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a mixed-use development on the Subject Lands.
Requested Relief
5In advance of the CMC, the Tribunal was advised that the Appellant and the City had reached an agreement to limit the scope of the appeal of OPA 106. The Parties jointly requested an Order of the Tribunal:
a) Scoping the Appellant’s appeal to “ITEM 1” of OPA 106 as it relates to the Subject Lands;
b) Holding the appeal in abeyance, pending a decision of City Council on the Appellant’s site-specific development application(s) for the Subject Lands; and
c) Confirming that, by operation of s. 17(30) of the Act, the remaining policies and schedules of OPA 106 not under appeal came into effect for all lands not subject to appeal on the day after the last day for filing a notice of appeal (which the Tribunal was advised was May 6, 2025).
Evidence and Findings
6In support of the requested relief, the Tribunal had before it the Affidavit of Stacey Laughlin, sworn August 6, 2025. Ms. Laughlin, a Registered Professional Planner, who currently holds the position of Downtown Revitalization Advisor for the City, appeared at the CMC and was qualified to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.
7Ms. Laughlin provided an overview of the history and purpose of OPA 106, explaining that City planning staff undertook a study and sought community input regarding downtown building heights. While the public was generally supportive of greater density in the downtown, particularly on vacant, unused, or underutilized sites, concerns were raised in relation to the need to protect the heritage character of the area and to maintain the City’s protected view corridors. Such feedback was taken into account in the process of drafting OPA 106, which identifies areas within the Downtown Secondary Plan area where additional height can be considered to meet the density target of 200 persons and jobs per hectare.
8On April 8, 2025, City Council passed By-law Number (2025)-21066, “A by-law to adopt Amendment Number 106 to the City of Guelph Official Plan to implement the findings of the Downtown Building Heights Study to permit revised building heights within the Downtown Secondary Plan area”. Save and except for the present appeal, Ms. Laughlin testified that she was not aware of any other appeals of OPA 106 having been filed. She further testified that the Appellant’s site-specific application(s) proposes a high-density, mixed-use development containing 1,129 dwelling units in a variety of built forms and dwelling types.
9The Tribunal heard that ITEM 1 of OPA 106 includes general built form guidance for high rise buildings throughout the City, including policies which clarify how tall buildings can achieve the requirement to incorporate distinctive top, middle, and bottom portions of a building. Ms. Laughlin explained the intent of the policy guidance in ITEM 1 is to ensure any changes made for tall buildings downtown would not create conflicts or uncertainty for tall buildings outside of downtown, given that tall buildings in the downtown are defined differently than those located outside of downtown.
10In Ms. Laughlin’s opinion, the proposal to scope the appeal to ITEM 1 of OPA 106 as it affects the Subject Lands is representative of good planning and is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), including but not limited to, policies which speak to promoting efficient development patterns, healthy communities, and residential intensification. The proposed scoping Order would allow OPA 106 to come into effect throughout the rest of the City and allow development to occur in the Downtown Secondary Plan area, increasing residential intensification and assisting the City in achieving density targets.
11She opined that OPA 106 and the recommended height permissions respect the scale of existing retail streets, cultural landmarks, and the heritage character of downtown, and aim to create a visually appealing skyline with a strong street-level experience, while ensuring appropriate transition to other buildings.
12The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the uncontested opinion evidence of Ms. Laughlin, that the proposed scoping Order is consistent with the PPS and represents good planning. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the unappealed portions of OPA 106 are representative of good planning and it is in the public interest for those portions to be brought into force and effect, while permitting the Appellant to address legitimate planning issues on an area-specific or site-specific basis.
ORDER
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS:
The appeal by Guelph Watson Holdings Inc. (“GWHI”) of By-law Number (2025)-21066, being a by-law to adopt Amendment Number 106 to the City of Guelph Official Plan (“OPA 106”), is scoped and confined to “ITEM 1” of OPA 106 as it relates to the lands municipally known as 115 Watson Parkway North (formerly known as 72 Watson Road North) (the “GWHI Lands”); and that
The appeal by GWHI shall be held in abeyance pending the Corporation of the City of Guelph (“City”) Council making a decision on GWHI’s site-specific development application(s) in connection with the GWHI Lands; and that
The remaining policies and schedules of OPA 106, save and except as identified above in subparagraph 1 of this Order, are no longer under appeal by GWHI, and having not been appealed by any other person or public body, are in force and effect by operation of s. 17(30) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”); and that
This Order shall be without prejudice to, and shall not have the effect of limiting:
a) The rights of GWHI to seek to modify, revise, delete, or add to the unapproved policies, sections, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables, and associated text in OPA 106 on a site-specific basis; or
b) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider and approve modifications, revisions, deletions, or additions to the unapproved OPA 106 policies, sections, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables, and associated text on a site-specific basis; and that
- This Order shall also be without prejudice to GWHI’s position in the appeal, so that if the appeal proceeds to a subsequent hearing or motion no party shall take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve the site-specific or area-specific modifications, additions, and/or deletions to the affected sections, policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables, and associated text on the basis that they deviate from or are inconsistent with such policies, sections, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables, and associated text as approved on a City-wide basis or in respect of other lands, without limiting the City’s right to assert that the approved policies, schedules, maps, figures, definitions, tables, and associated text should be applied to the specific sites or areas without modification on the basis that doing so is consistent with the Planning Act, provincial policies, conform to provincial plans, and/or constitutes good planning.
14The Member is not seized, but may be spoken to should issues arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.
“S. Braun”
S. Braun
VICE-CHAIR
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.