Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 28, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000485
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant:
Zalman Goldman
Owners:
David Arcus, Elizabeth Christo and Katherine Arcus
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
To permit home business within dwelling and garage, occupying up to 50% of the buildings and 7 workers other than the owner
Reference Number:
A 11-2025
Property Address:
7826 5 Sideroad
Municipality/UT:
Adjala-Tosorontio/Simcoe
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-25-000485
OLT Case No:
OLT-25-000485
OLT Case Name:
Goldman v Adjala-Tosorontio (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6
Request by:
Township of Adjala-Tosorontio
Request for:
Request for Adjournment of the Merit Hearing scheduled for August 20, 2025 to a new date
Heard:
August 20, 2025 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Zalman Goldman
Katarzyna Sliwa Douglas Pateman
Adjala-Tosorontio (Township)
Isaac Tang
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON AUGUST 20, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1Zalman Goldman (“Applicant”) brought an application before the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio’s (Township) Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) for two minor variances to permit a home business at 7826 5th Side Road (“Subject Property”). The Township Staff Report recommended approval of the application subject to conditions. On May 21, 2025, the application was refused by the Committee as it was deemed not to satisfy the tests for a minor variance.
2The Subject Property is located within the Oak Ridges Moraine and currently consists of a single detached residential dwelling, detached garage and five additional non-conforming accessory structures in the form of cabins and sheds.
3The minor variances are required to (i) permit the use of up to 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling and garage for a home business and (ii) allow for up to seven persons, other than the owner of the dwelling, to work at the home business. The proposed home business is a wellness centre which will provide professional services in the form of counselling, life coaching, nutrition, exercise (yoga/meditation) and overnight accommodation for treatment of persons suffering varying mental health or addiction disorders.
4The following variances to the Adjala-Tosorontio Zoning By-law ORM 03-56 (“ZBL”) are the subject of the application:
ZBL
Permitted
Proposed
s. 3.13(b)
The home business shall be conducted entirely within the dwelling and shall not occupy greater than 25 percent of the gross floor area of the dwelling.
The home business shall be conducted within the dwelling and garage buildings and shall not occupy greater than 50 percent of the gross floor area of the buildings.
s. 3.13(d)
No more than (1) person other than the owner of the dwelling shall work in the home business
No more than (7) persons other than the owner of the dwelling shall work in the home business.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
Notice
5As this was the first and only hearing event scheduled, the Tribunal confirmed that there were no known issues with the Notice of Hearing and confirmed that proper Notice was given.
Verbatim Reporter
6On the day prior to the hearing, Counsel for the Applicant advised the Tribunal via email that, on consent of the Township, it wished to use the services of a Verbatim Reporter. At the hearing, the Parties advised that the Applicant had agreed to pay the fee associated with the Verbatim Reporter, including costs associated with transcripts ordered by the Applicant or requested by the Tribunal. The Township acknowledged that it would bear its own cost if it wished to order transcripts of the proceedings.
7Victory Verbatim Reporting Services Inc., the Verbatim Reporter, was given consent by the Tribunal to record the proceedings in accordance with Rule 22.8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Tribunal Rules”).
Status Requests
8In advance of the hearing, the Tribunal received 15 Participant Status Request Forms from the following, which were collectively marked as Exhibit 6 to the proceedings:
Janet Budgell
Diana Figueiredo
Rob Graniero
David Halwig
Fionagh Halwig
James and Marilyn Hills
Harvey Kolodny
Keith Lawrence
Dorit McKenna
Petti Perrotta
Steve Perrotta
Marie Phillip
Floyd Pinto
STORM Coalition represented by Robert Brown
Donald Turner
9The requests set out similar concerns related to, but not limited to, adequacy of the existing septic system, impacts to the environment, traffic and road safety, lack of transparency, intensity of the proposed use and the proposed use setting a negative precedent.
10Upon the consent of the Parties, the Tribunal granted Participant status to each of the individuals/entities set out in paragraph [8] above.
11The Tribunal confirmed that there were no other individuals or entities present seeking status in the appeal. The Tribunal directed that there would be no further opportunity to seek party or participant status in these proceedings.
MOTION TO ADJOURN
12On August 14, 2025 Mr. James Feehely, the Township’s former counsel, requested an adjournment of the hearing which was opposed by the Applicant and denied by the Tribunal. In its letter denying the adjournment request the Tribunal noted that a formal Notice of Motion could be brought by the Township if it wished to pursue its adjournment request. The Tribunal further noted that if time did not permit the motion to be brought in accordance with the Tribunal Rules, it could be made returnable at the commencement of the hearing.
13On the afternoon of August 18, 2025, the Township’s newly retained counsel filed a Motion to Adjourn which was considered by the Tribunal at the outset of the hearing. The Parties were made aware of the intention of the Township’s newly retained counsel to bring a Motion to Adjourn via an email circulated on the afternoon of August 15, 2025.
14Both the Motion Record and the Notice of Response to Motion requested an Order of the Tribunal abridging time for service. The Tribunal confirmed with the Parties that there were no objections to the Tribunal abridging time for service of the materials and as such, the Tribunal accordingly abridged the time for service and heard the Motion.
15The materials before the Tribunal on the Motion include the following:
a. Exhibit 1: Motion Record of the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio dated August 18, 2025, including the Affidavit of Meaghan Davies affirmed August 18, 2025 together with accompanying exhibits;
b. Exhibit 2: Affidavit of Service re Motion Record of the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio affirmed by Meghan Davies on August 18, 2025;
c. Exhibit 3: Book of Authorities of the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio dated August 19, 2025;
d. Exhibit 4: Notice of Response to Motion of Zalman Goldman, including the Affidavit of Heath Purtell-Sharp sworn August 19, 2025 together with accompanying exhibits
e. Exhibit 5: Book of Authorities of Zalman Goldman
Township’s Position on the Motion
16The relief requested by the Township includes:
a. A Decision and Order:
i. Adjourning the merit hearing scheduled for August 20, 2025 to a new date no earlier than October 20, 2025 to allow the Township’s newly retained legal counsel to advise and seek instructions from the Township, and for the Township to retain witnesses for a Merit Hearing; or
ii. In the alternative, converting the Merit Hearing date to a case management conference and scheduling a new date to consider this motion.
b. An Order of the Tribunal abridging the time for service of the Notice of Motion, if necessary.
c. Such further or other relief as counsel may request and the Tribunal may permit.
17The grounds for the Motion to Adjourn include:
a. Township Council was advised by its former legal counsel just one week before the Merit Hearing that his firm would not be [sic] able to represent the Township due to a conflict of interest.
b. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (“BLG”) was retained five days (and three business days) before the Merit Hearing.
c. Five days is insufficient for BLG to advise and receive instructions from the Township, retain witnesses for a Merit Hearing to give evidence on behalf of the Township, scope or settle issues and properly prepare for a contested hearing.
d. An adjournment of the Merit Hearing for a brief period of time to allow BLG to advise and receive instructions from the Township, retain witnesses, scope or settle issues and properly prepare for a contested hearing would lead to a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective resolution of the merits of the proceedings.
e. Not granting an adjournment of the Merit Hearing would not only be contrary to the OLT Rules but result in a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice There is limited, if any, prejudice to the Applicant if the adjournment is granted and substantial prejudice to the Township if the adjournment is denied. It would not be in the public interest to refuse a brief adjournment; in contrast, it would force the Township to present a case without properly prepared legal counsel and witnesses when the instructions from Township council is to call a fulsome case, and there is substantial public interests in the outcome of the appeal.
18The Township reviewed the relevant legislation and Tribunal Rules and argued that Rule 17 should not be interpreted narrowly as suggested by the Applicant, submitting that the use of illness in Rule 17 is merely an example of what could constitute an emergency. It argued that if the Tribunal meant to restrict unavoidable emergencies to something physical preventing attendance at a hearing, it would have used the word “physical” in Rule 17.4. Using a broad interpretation of Rule 17.4 would allow the Tribunal, in certain circumstances, to adjourn a hearing if a statutory party did not have proper representation.
19The Township relied on Skeggs v. Aloe-Gunnell, 2015 ONSC 2743 (“Skeggs”) where the Court found that a party has a fundamental right to be heard, which includes a right to provide evidence, cross-examine and make submissions. If a party is deprived of that right, “…the party is deprived of natural justice, and the decision made in breach of that right cannot stand”. Township Council was advised of Mr. Feehely’s conflict of interest one week prior to the hearing which required them to retain new counsel resulting in the Township’s ability to call a case to be compromised.
20In balancing potential prejudice, the Township submitted that it is a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice if legal counsel are not provided the opportunity to fulfil the basic components that they are retained to do. These components include advising the Township, making recommendations for retaining witnesses and receiving instructions from Council to do so, meaningfully engaging with opposing counsel to potentially scope or settle issues in dispute and prepare its case. Counsel for the Township argues that given their recent retainer, the ability to call the Township’s case will be significantly prejudiced without an adjournment. The Township submitted that any prejudice to the Applicant resulting from the already filed witness statement and document book could be addressed through directions from the Tribunal. It further submitted that the Applicant would not suffer any prejudice due to the brief delay in having the matter heard and any additional costs that the Applicant may incur if the adjournment were granted could be dealt with through a motion for costs.
21The Township submitted that a brief adjournment of two months is reasonable and necessary to ensure the rules of procedural fairness and natural justice are met. Township Council needs to be permitted time to instruct its recently retained counsel to provide the Tribunal with sufficient and best evidence to make its decision.
Applicant’s Position on the Motion
22The relief requested by the Applicant includes:
a. An Order dismissing the Motion in its entirety;
b. An Order, if necessary, directing the merits hearing of the appeal bearing OLT Case No. OLT-25-000485 (the “Appeal”) to proceed as scheduled on August 20, 2025;
c. An Order, if necessary, abridging service of this Response to Motion;
d. The costs of this Motion on a substantial indemnity basis; and
e. Such further and other relief as counsel may request and the Tribunal may permit.
23The grounds raised by the Applicant fall into three categories: (i) the motion is a delay tactic, it is brought in bad faith and the Motion Record does not tell the entire story; (ii) the Township fails to meet the test for adjournment in Rule 17; and (iii) there is no procedural fairness concern or public interest issue.
24The Applicant argued that the Township’s adjournment request is a delay tactic to attempt to drive the Applicant’s proposed wellness centre out of the Township. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that neither the Township nor the residents want the wellness centre to be established on the Subject Property. During the August 13, 2025 Council meeting, Council provided Township Staff with a direction to study a “loophole” in the ZBL relating to drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities and the motive for the adjournment request is an attempt to thwart a legal use that already exists from continuing to operate.
25The Applicant submitted that hearing dates are fixed (Tribunal Rule 17.1) and a Party requesting a contested adjournment must bring a motion at least 15 days prior to a hearing event (Tribunal Rule 17.3). The Applicant argued that Mr. Feehely and the Township are experienced in Tribunal procedures and one or both of them should have brought the adjournment request in accordance with the Tribunal Rules. The Tribunal will grant last minute adjournments only for unavoidable emergencies (Tribunal Rule 17.4), which the Applicant submits are of the nature that physically prevents the participation of counsel or a witness arising so close to the hearing that replacements cannot be secured. The Applicant argued that the Township did not act efficiently and had the opportunity to seek alternate counsel since the filing of the appeal on June 10, 2025.
26The Applicant pointed the Tribunal to various instances where the Tribunal has refused adjournment requests when counsel or experts are unavailable. The Applicant relied on McIsaac v. Port Colbourne (City), 2022 CarswellOnt 3933 (“McIsaac”) which was a motion to adjourn a motion to dismiss hearing. The Applicant submitted that a motion to dismiss is treated very seriously given that a party’s rights are taken away if a dismissal is granted. In McIsaac, the Tribunal denied the adjournment noting that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting deviation from Tribunal Rule 17 and that alternate representation or other reasonable alternatives were available to the Appellant, who failed to explore same. The Tribunal found that parties are entitled to have appeals heard in a timely manner without reasonable delay.
27The Applicant brought the Tribunal to the Township’s by-laws which permit staff to call emergency meetings and special meetings for pressing issues. It was argued that the Township failed to act in a manner consistent with its by-laws if retaining alternate counsel and providing instruction on the appeal were in fact pressing issues.
28The Applicant argued that the Township’s circumstances are its own creation and there is no lack of procedural fairness to the Township. The Applicant further argued that the Township had three experts advising the Committee to allow the minor variances and the Township did not like these opinions, so it is attempting to delay the hearing in order to find an expert supportive of the Committee’s decision. The Applicant argued that “shopping around for a planner that supports a position” is different from not having time to find a planner. The adjournment was needed to enable the Township additional time to find a lawyer able to support a difficult Council position in addition to finding a planner to contradict three planning opinions already provided to Council. None of these instances constitute unavoidable emergencies.
29The Applicant submitted that the Township knew, or ought to have known, about Mr. Feehely’s conflict of interest and its failure to take necessary steps is prejudicial to the Applicant. If the adjournment is granted, the Applicant will incur additional costs and may be faced with new policies depending on the results of Township Staff’s investigation of the “loophole” that was raised at the August 13, 2025 Council meeting referred to in paragraph [24] above.
Township Reply Submissions
30The main thrust of the Township’s response was that it disagreed with the Applicant’s assertion that it should have known on June 10, 2025 to hire different counsel and experts. When it was advised of the hearing date, the Township immediately retained Mr. Feehely and there is no evidence that the Township or Mr. Feehely knew of a conflict of interest at that time.
31As noted above, Mr. Feehely was unaware of a conflict when retained and upon reviewing the file and becoming aware of the conflict of interest, he acted in good faith and immediately took steps to notify his client and those involved in the appeal.
Ruling on the Motion
32Despite the Tribunal receiving submissions from Counsel relating to the minor variances, these were not considered as they are properly left to be determined at the merit hearing. The sole issue considered and decided on the motion was whether a brief adjournment of the hearing should be granted.
33The Tribunal’s Rules on adjournments make it clear that the starting point is that all hearing dates are fixed. A request for an adjournment must be based on supportable reasons why the Party seeking the adjournment cannot present their case on the hearing date and an adjournment should be granted.
34The timeline of events leading up to the motion to adjourn are relevant and unique to this appeal which resulted in the Tribunal exercising its discretion to liberally interpret the Tribunal’s Rules in order to ensure that the proceedings before it are considered fair.
35Subsequent to the Applicant filing the minor variance appeal on June 10, 2025, the Township forwarded the appeal to the Tribunal on June 25, 2025, which was acknowledged by the Tribunal on June 26, 2025. The Tribunal issued a Notice of Hearing on July 2, 2025 and the Township retained Mr. Feehely on July 4, 2025. Through an email dated July 28, 2025, Mr. Feehely advised the Applicant that he had met with Township staff on July 25, 2025 to advise them of a conflict of interest that he had and as such, he would no longer be able to represent the Township at the hearing and he would obtain instructions at the Township Council meeting scheduled for August 13, 2025. At the Council meeting, Mr. Feehely advised of his conflict of interest and Council confirmed that it would retain new counsel and witnesses in order to appear before the Tribunal to support the decision of the Committee. On August 14, 2025, Mr. Feehely wrote to the Tribunal and the Applicant requesting an adjournment, which was opposed by the Applicant and denied by the Tribunal. On August 15, 2025 the Township retained new counsel who, on the same day, advised the Applicant and the Tribunal that the Township would bring a motion to adjourn returnable at the hearing scheduled for August 20, 2025.
36The Tribunal cannot agree with the Applicant’s submission that the Township should have brought the adjournment request 15 days in advance of the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal Rules. Rule 17.3 provides flexibility in allowing a party to bring a motion for an adjournment at the beginning of a hearing event if a party has been advised by the Tribunal that it has refused to consider a late request, which is the very scenario which occurred in the present case. The Tribunal also cannot agree with the Applicant’s suggestion that an “unavoidable emergency” as set out in Rule 17.4 must be physical in nature. The Tribunal agrees with the Township that if it was the intent of the Tribunal to limit unavoidable emergencies to those which are physical in nature, it would have explicitly done so.
37The Tribunal finds that the Township retained counsel at the commencement of the proceedings and through no fault of the Township, their chosen counsel declared a conflict late in the proceedings at which time it immediately retained alternate counsel. Township Council was advised of the conflict of interest of Mr. Feehely on August 13, 2025 and immediately retained Mr. Tang on August 15, 2025. On that same day, Mr. Tang made known through email correspondence that an adjournment was being requested and the Motion for Adjournment was filed on August 18, 2025. The Tribunal cannot agree with the Applicant’s submission that the Township should have sought alternate counsel as of the filing of the appeal on June 10, 2025. This contention does not align with how the appeal unfolded. Mr. Feehely, the Township’s first choice of counsel, was retained on July 4, 2025 and there was no evidence presented to the Tribunal to indicate that the Township, or Mr. Feehely, knew about the conflict at the time the appeal was filed nor at the time Mr. Feehely was retained. Similarly, the Tribunal did not hear any evidence that Mr. Feehely failed to explore reasonable alternatives, which was the case in McIsaac. In fact, the Tribunal did hear that upon realizing the conflict of interest, Mr. Feehely explored whether his law partner could take over the Township’s case and determined that his law partner was also in a conflict position relating to the appeal. The Tribunal has a public interest mandate to allow Parties to have a fair hearing and be represented by counsel, if not their first choice, then alternate counsel.
38The request by the Township to properly advise their newly retained counsel and secure experts to advance its position in the appeal is a compelling ground upon which to grant an adjournment in this circumstance. The Township brought the Tribunal to Jamia Islamia Canada Ltd. v. Mississauga (City), 2015 CanLII 77379 where the Tribunal’s predecessor, the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”), granted an adjournment finding that “…the prospects of a fair hearing would be remote without legal and/or planning representation made on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant”. The Tribunal finds that the circumstances in this case would similarly negatively impact the Township’s ability to argue its case and the Township should not be penalized for the action, or lack of action, taken by its former legal counsel. Section 21 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 provides the Tribunal with jurisdiction to adjourn an appeal “…where it is shown to the satisfaction of the tribunal that the adjournment is required to permit an adequate hearing to be held”. The Tribunal finds that allowing the adjournment will result in a complete presentation of the case, while not causing the Applicant significant delay in having its case heard. Any potential prejudice which could be suffered by the Applicant from the early filing of its documents can be cured through staggered filing deadlines leading up to the adjourned hearing. Denying the adjournment would hinder the Tribunal’s ability to make a fair decision.
39In weighing potential prejudice to each party, the Tribunal found that procedural fairness and the public interest would be served by granting a relatively short adjournment which the Tribunal’s calendar could accommodate. The Township highlighted the findings of the Tribunal in Mels v. Southwold (Township), 2022 CanLII 13983 (“Mels”), where the Tribunal found that granting a short adjournment was in the public interest. Similar to Mels, the Township has requested a short adjournment of two months and the prejudice to the Township in denying it the opportunity to present a credible challenge to the minor variance appeal outweighs any potential prejudice to the Applicant. The adjournment would allow counsel for the Township to receive instructions from Council in addition to providing an opportunity for counsel to thoroughly review and put forward the position of the Township to ensure that the Tribunal has the best evidence before it in rendering its decision on the minor variance. Further, the time will enable the Parties to engage in discussions aimed at scoping or settling the issues. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the Applicant would suffer prejudice if, during the brief adjournment, Township Staff had time to investigate the “loophole” in the ZBL relating to drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities. The Applicant’s concern focused on new policies that could be put into place prior to an adjourned hearing date, thereby causing the Applicant to have a new case to meet which would add considerable cost to the appeal. The Township agreed that if there were new policies in place relating to drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities, the clergy principle1 would apply as the appeal was filed prior to any potential new policy context. The Tribunal emphasized that the clergy principle is invoked at the discretion of the presiding Member and this Tribunal decision will not fetter that discretion, which was acknowledged by the Parties. However, the Township confirmed that it would not oppose the Applicant’s argument at a merit hearing that the clergy principle should apply in the event new policies relevant to the appeal are in place. Given the Township’s position on the clergy principle and the unlikely event that Township Staff will have time to investigate the “loophole” leading to Township Council implementing new policies in a two month period, the Tribunal determined that the likelihood of prejudice to the Applicant relating to a new policy context was remote.
40In relation to the Applicant’s request for additional relief in the form of an Order for costs of the present Motion, the Tribunal directed that any such request can be made to the Tribunal through a written motion for costs pursuant to Rule 23 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. While the option to file such a motion remains available to the Applicant, the Parties are cautioned that on a preliminary basis, it was not obvious to the Tribunal that any party acted in such a manner to meet the relatively high threshold to attract such an award.
NEXT STEPS
41Following the Tribunal’s ruling on the motion, the Tribunal canvassed the Parties’ availability and ordered that the hearing be adjourned to a one-day video hearing on Thursday, October 23, 2025 at 10 a.m. as follows:
42Parties 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/909787981
Access code: 909-787-981
43Parties 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 or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
44Persons 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: (647) 497-9391 or (Toll Free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is: 909-787-981.
45Individuals 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.
46The Parties jointly advised the Tribunal that they had agreed to the following timelines for deliverables leading up to the hearing:
a. Friday, October 3, 2025: Township will circulate copies of its witness statement(s);
b. Friday, October 10, 2025: Parties will circulate copies of their visual evidence;
c. Friday, October 10, 2025: Township will prepare and circulate a joint document book, building upon the document book filed by the Applicant on August 11, 2025; and
d. Monday, October 13, 2025: Applicant will circulate copies of its reply witness statement(s). The Tribunal notes that this date is a statutory holiday and as such, will accept reply witness statement(s) on Tuesday, October 14, 2025.
47The Applicant will not be precluded from including any additional documents in the joint document book being prepared by the Township.
ORDER
48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the motion to adjourn brought by the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio is granted and the hearing pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act is adjourned to Thursday, October 23, 2025.
49THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT participant status is granted to the following:
Janet Budgell
Diana Figueiredo
Rob Graniero
David Halwig
Fionagh Halwig
James and Marilyn Hills
Harvey Kolodny
Keith Lawrence
Dorit McKenna
Petti Perrotta
Steve Perrotta
Marie Phillip
Floyd Pinto
STORM Coalition represented by Robert Brown
Donald Turner
50The case management directives set out above are so ordered.
51The Member is not seized but will remain available for further case management should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.
“C. Hardy”
C. HARDY
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.