Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 25, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000247
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 222(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25.
Appellant: Debera McKeen
Subject: By-law 2588-25
Description: Haldimand County Ward Boundary By-law 2588-25
Property Address: County-Wide
Municipality: Haldimand County
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000247
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000247
OLT Case Name: McKeen v. Haldimand (County)
Heard: July 15, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Haldimand County | S. Premi |
| Debera McKeen | N. Kolomaya |
DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN COOKE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1The matter before the Tribunal was the hearing of the merits of an appeal brought forward by Debera McKeen ("Appellant") pursuant to subsection 222(4) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (“Act”). This appeal concerns the passage of By-Law No.2588-25, to establish a new ward boundary configuration in Haldimand County.
EXHIBITS
2The following had been entered as exhibits:
a. Ex.1 Haldimand County Document Book
b. Ex.2 Witness Statement of Dr. Robert Williams
c. Ex 3. Witness Statement of Jack Ammendolia
OVERVIEW
3Chad Curtis, Clerk for Haldimand County, provided lay witness testimony to provide background to the Tribunal on the ward boundary review process.
4Mr. Curtis stated that on April 11, 2023, the Haldimand County Council in Committee meeting declared Ward Realignment a Term of Council Priority for 2022-2026, aiming to evaluate options to address population growth and community representation.
5On August 29, 2023, Mr. Curtis informed the Tribunal, that the Council approved the scope and budget for the Ward Boundary Review, which included an examination of ward boundaries and Council composition. Through a Request for Proposal process, Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. was awarded the contract to conduct the review.
6Mr. Curtis noted that on May 28, 2024, Dr. Robert Williams and Jack Ammendolia conducted an introductory workshop, followed by interviews with Municipal Council members and senior staff. Haldimand County launched a dedicated website for the review, providing information, discussion papers, and an opportunity for public feedback.
7Mr. Curtis testified that public information sessions were advertised through social media. The first in-person open houses occurred on June 25, 2024, and a virtual open house was held on June 27, 2024, enabling further public discussions.
8On October 1, 2024, the Watson Preliminary Options Report was released, followed by another round of public engagement on October 2 and 3, 2024, during which residents discussed four proposed ward boundary options.
9On November 4, 2024, Mr. Ammendolia updated the Council on the review. The Watson Final Report was published on January 30, 2025, ahead of the February 4 meeting, where two options were presented. Council opted for the 7 Ward Option.
10Mr. Curtis stated that By-law No. 2588-25 to establish the new ward boundaries were approved on February 10, 2025.
APPELLANTS POSITION
11The Appellant argued that the passing of the By-law was unfair and unjustified. It is their position that the Council had a viable option that would maintain the current six-ward system, but choose an option that had not been presented in the consultants original report to Haldimand County.
12On October 2nd, 2024, the Consultant Team released a Preliminary Options Report on the Haldimand County's website.
13The report analyzed several options to improve the existing six-ward system, including Preliminary Option 4.
14Each option was evaluated against five guiding principles, rated as “Yes,” “Largely Successful,” “Partially Successful,” or “No.”
15Preliminary Option Four was assessed as follows:
Representation by Population: Yes
Protection of Communities of Interest: Largely Successful
Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends: Yes
Consideration of Natural and Physical Boundaries: Yes
Effective Representation: Yes
Haldimand County Council did not choose Preliminary Option 4.
16On January 30, 2025, the agenda for the February 4th Council-in-Committee meeting included the Consultant Team’s Final Report.
17The Final Report featured a six-ward and a seven-ward option, with the Council selecting the seven-ward option, “Final Option 2.”
18It is the position of the Appellant that no seven-ward option was presented to the public prior to the Final Report's release.
19The Appellant recognizes that though the Act does not require a public process for ward reviews, the Tribunal should note that public meetings create an expectation for resident input on proposals.
20It is the opinion of the Appellant that there was no urgent deadline that required the Council to select a new seven-ward option within a week of the Final Report.
21The Appellant believes that the rapid introduction of Final Option 2 was unfair and unjust.
22Final Option 2 was evaluated as follows:
Representation by Population: Yes
Protection of Communities of Interest: Largely Successful
Consideration of Present and Future Population Trends: Partially Successful
Consideration of Natural and Physical Boundaries: Yes
Effective Representation: Largely Successful
23While the assessments were not point-based, Preliminary Option 4 was clearly superior to the guiding principles in the opinion of the Appellant.
24It is their position that the Final Report indicated that Final Option 2 would weaken effective representation over time as the population grows.
25Choosing an option that inherently weakens representation as population increases is unreasonable. Preliminary Option 4 does not share this flaw and should be selected.
26It is unreasonable to opt for a process that seeks to fulfill guiding principles while selecting an option that does not achieve that.
27It was the recommendation of the Appellant that the Tribunal adopt Preliminary Option 4 as it would better meet the principles than Final Option 2.
HALDIMAND COUNTY’S POSITION
28The County called Dr. Robert Williams and Jack Ammendolia who performed the consultation for the County to provide expert opinion evidence as a Panel.
29The Panel informed the Tribunal that most objections stem from claims that the Council's decision should be overturned due to alleged flaws in the review process.
30The Panel responded specifically to the claim that there was “no opportunity for public input on the Final Recommendations.” They stated that the agenda for the February 4 meeting, which included their team’s Final Report, was released on schedule, and both the Appellant and another resident spoke against the Final Recommendation during that meeting, indicating there was indeed an opportunity for public input.
31Additionally, the Panel addressed other grounds for the appeal, particularly those related to the By-law itself. The Appellant asserts that the process “does not meet the Guiding Principles,” which pertains to how these principles were applied when identifying the recommended option. The second document raises concerns about a “contradictory” application of the principles.
32The Panel testified that Preliminary Options were based on four guiding principles that contribute to the overarching principle of effective representation. The Panel noted that these are guiding principles, not mandatory rules. Two are empirical “representation by population” and “consideration of present and future population trends”, while the other two, are subjective “protection of communities of interest” and “consideration of natural and physical boundaries.”
33The Appellant’s analysis according to the Panel, uses a flawed scoring system that overlooks the nuances of the review process. The appropriateness of recommended options is based on individual ward attributes rather than merely achieving the highest score. For example, the Panel was willing to propose wards identical to existing ones to maintain familiarity for residents. Adjusting ward boundaries aims for better representation, not an exhaustive overhaul.
34Moreover, the guiding principles are not equally weighted. Achieving a “higher score” for using natural features as boundaries may conflict with other significant factors, such as community interests. A rigid scoring system fails to capture the essence of these principles.
35The Panel stated that the evidence that the proposed 7-ward configuration meets the guiding principles established for this study, as well as the relevant case law. In addition, the Panel explain how the configuration endorsed by the Council ensures population equality, maintains communities of interest, provides geographic continuity, and aligns with the principles of fair and effective representation. The evaluation of the 7-ward option acknowledges that future population growth may create some parity issues, necessitating adjustments to future systems.
36The Panel stated that the selection of a 7-ward option resulted from an ongoing deliberation and feedback process. Although the preliminary options presented to the public focused on 6-ward configurations, the Consultant Team had developed and considered 7-ward options in their work. During Council deliberations, a theme emerged regarding the need to maintain 2 wards of representation for Dunnville and the surrounding area, as well as 2 wards for Caledonia and its vicinity.
37The Panel highlighted that while public consultation is not a legislative requirement, it is a significant aspect of the Panels review process. Multiple methods were used to engage residents, including dedicated webpages, whiteboard videos, discussion papers, surveys, and in-person sessions. The Panel stated that it is important to note that most municipal council business is not conducted through specific engagement sessions or surveys. Rather, it occurs in public forums, such as Council and Committee Meetings, where council members discuss and vote on matters transparently. In the case of this Comprehensive Community Ward Boundary Review, after several rounds of targeted public engagement, the Council deliberated and discussed the options during public Committee and Council Meetings to arrive at the final selection. At these meetings, residents had the opportunity to delegate to the Council, as the Appellant did.
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
38It is common for staff or consultants' recommendations to evolve during committee discussions or public input workshops. Based on the uncontested expert evidence provided by Dr. Robert Williams and Jack Ammendolia, the Tribunal concludes that the recommendation for the Council to consider the option of 7 Wards emerged organically throughout the process. There is no basis for the Tribunal to believe that the Council altered or intervened in a way that would have changed the outcomes of the recommended options. Ultimately, it is the Council's responsibility to make a decision based on the information presented to them, specifically regarding the creation of an additional Ward to addresses, natural boundaries, communities of interest, and population concerns. The Tribunal finds no grounds to overturn the County Council's decision.
ORDER
39THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is dismissed.
“Steven Cooke”
STEVEN COOKE
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.