CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. v. Norfolk County, 2025 CanLII 9158

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

February 3, 2025

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-001072

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit the construction of a 3-storey mixed use building

Reference Number:

OPNPL2024111

Property Address:

481 & 487 Norfolk Street South and 7 Decou Road

Municipality/UT:

Norfolk County/Norfolk County

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-001072

OLT Case Name:

CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. v. Norfolk County

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description:

To permit the construction of a 3-storey mixed use building

Reference Number:

ZNPL2024131

Property Address:

481 & 487 Norfolk Street South and 7 Decou Road

Municipality/UT:

Norfolk County/Norfolk County

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-001073

OLT Case Name:

CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. v. Norfolk County

Heard:

January 14, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

CIA inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc.

Meredith Baker Scott Snider (in absentia) Anna Toumanians (in absentia)

County of Norfolk

Brian Duxbury

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED ON JANUARY 14, 2025, BY S. DEBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held in preparation for a Hearing of the Merits regarding the appeal by CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. (“Appellants”) pursuant to s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act due to the County of Norfolk’s (“County”) refusal of the Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) Applications for the properties municipally known as 481 and 487 Norfolk Street, and 7 Decou Road in the County of Norfolk (“Subject Lands”).

2The purpose of the CMC was to consider requests for Party or Participant status, consider the proposed Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), and to set a date for the Merit Hearing.

3At the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal approved and marked the Affidavit of Service of Notice by Natalie Deluca dated December 12, 2024, as Exhibit 1 to the Hearing. Since the Tribunal was satisfied with the Affidavit or Service of Notice, the Tribunal ruled that no further Notice would be necessary.

BACKGROUND

4The purpose of the applications is to facilitate a development of a three-storey mixed-use building on the Subject Lands. The OPA application would permit an increase in the total commercial gross floor area and increase the residential density to 50 units per hectare. The ZBA would permit a zoning change from Urban Residential Type 1B (R1B) to Residential Commercial Business Zone (CRB).

STATUS REQUESTS

5The Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party Status prior to the CMC. Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal was made aware of one Participant Status request, that of Glenn Paquette. The Parties agreed that the request for Participant status and the Participant Statement should be allowed. After review, the Tribunal approved the Participant Status Request and Participant Statement of Mr. Paquette. The Tribunal stated to Mr. Paquette that his Participant Statement will be considered in the course of the Merits Hearing. The Tribunal canvassed the other persons attending the CMC, and no other requests for Party or Participant status were made during the CMC.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESOLUTION

6The Tribunal canvassed the Parties with respect to opportunities for settlement, including the use of Tribunal-led mediation. The Parties stated that they would be open to participating in Tribunal-led mediation, however, Mr. Duxbury had not received instructions from the County as to their agreeing to engage in Tribunal-led mediation as of the time of this CMC. If the County decides to participate in mediation, it will request to do so through the Case Coordinator.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

7The Tribunal had received and reviewed the proposed PO and IL prior to the CMC. The Tribunal approves of its contents, and the attached PO will govern the events leading up to and including the Merits Hearing.

SCHEDULING OF HEARING

8Based on the number of witnesses that the Parties intend to call, the Tribunal has scheduled a Merits Hearing that will occur by Video Hearing beginning on Monday, October 27, 2025, at 10 a.m. for a duration of five days.

9Parties and Participants are asked to log into the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733

Access code: 979-388-733

Parties and 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

10Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is 979-388-733

11Individuals 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 Hearing by Video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the Hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT a Merits Hearing will commence by Video Hearing on October 27, 2025, at 10 a.m. for a duration of five days.

13THE TRIBUAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the attached Procedural Order to govern the procedures leading up to and including the video hearing is approved. The Procedural Order as set out in Schedule 1 below is in full force and effect on the issue date of this Order.

14The Member is not seized but may be spoken to if procedural issues arise.

“S. deBoer”

S. DEBOER

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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(S).:

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit the construction of a 3-storey mixed use building

Reference Number:

OPNPL2024111

Property Address:

481 & 487 Norfolk Street South and 7 Decou Road

Municipality/UT:

Norfolk County/Norfolk County

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-001072

OLT Case Name:

CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. v. Norfolk County

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant:

CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description:

To permit the construction of a 3-storey mixed use building

Reference Number:

ZNPL2024131

Property Address:

481 & 487 Norfolk Street South and 7 Decou Road

Municipality/UT:

Norfolk County/Norfolk County

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-001073

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-001072

OLT Case Name:

CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. v. Norfolk County

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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 October 27, 2025 at 10:00 am by Video Hearing.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is five [5] 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. A summary of key dates is set out in Attachment 4.

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 https://olt.gov.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Sample-PO-Aug-2022.html).

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, 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 June 26, 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 July 10, 2025 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties may prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before July 17, 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 August 28, 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 August 28, 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 22, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before October 9, 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 25, 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 17, 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 with the Tribunal on or before October 17, 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 (in searchable and printable PDF format, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties and the OLT case coordinator) and, if requested by the OLT case coordinator, 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.

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.

24. A summary of procedural dates is set out in Attachment 4.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

PARTIES & PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

1. CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc.

TMA Law

25 Main Street West, Suite 2010

Hamilton, ON L8P 1H1

Scott Snider

Tel: 905.529.3476

Email: ssnider@tmalaw.ca

Anna Toumanians

Tel: 905.529.3476

Email: atoumanians@tmalaw.ca

2. Norfolk County

Duxbury Law

1 King St W, Suite 500

Hamilton, ON L8P 1A4

Brian Duxbury

Tel: 905.570.1242

Email: brian@duxburylaw.ca

PARTICIPANTS

Name

Address

Email

Glenn M. Paquette

24 Simson Avenue Simcoe, ON N3Y 5G5

gmpaquette1965@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSUES LIST

NOTE 1: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet but shall not preclude any other party from calling evidence on the issue.

Matters of Provincial Interest (Section 2 of Planning Act)

Party

Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, and subsections 2(b), (e), (f), (g), (h), (j), (p), (q), (r), and (s) in particular?

CIA

Does the proposed development have regard to matters of Provincial interest pursuant to section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 and in particular, sub-section (h), (j), (o), (p) and (r)?

County

What regard should there be to the decision made by County Council pursuant to Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?

County

Provincial Planning Statement 2024

Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (“PPS”), including but not limited to the following policies:

• 2.2.1;
• 2.3.1;
• 2.8.1;
• 2.9.1; and
• 3.2 and 3.6.1?

CIA

Is the proposed development consistent with the Provincial Policy statement, 2024 and in particular the following policies:

• 2.2.1 (b) 1
• 2.3.1.1
• 2.3.1.2
• 2.3.1.3

County

Norfolk County Official Plan

Does the proposed development conform to the policies of the Norfolk County Official Plan, including but not limited to the following policies:

• 1.3h)-i)
• 3.6g)
• 5.3g)
• 5.3.1
• 5.4
• 6.3
• 6.4
• 7.7.1c)
• 7.7.2c)
• 7.7.2d)
• 8.9.1d)
• 8.2 i)
• 9.6.1c)
• 9.6.5d); and
• 9.7.2?

CIA

Does the proposed development conform to the County of Norfolk Official Plan in particular the following policies:

• 7.7 (preamble paragraphs)
• 7.7.1 (l)
• 7.7.2 (d) (i)
• 9.6.1 (c)?

Does the proposed development meet the residential intensification tests of the Norfolk County Official Plan, including policies 5.3.1 and 7.7.2c)?

CIA

Other

Are the proposed scale, density and height of the proposed development appropriate for this location?

CIA

Are the proposed site-specific performance standards appropriate for the proposed development and do they generally maintain the intent of the Zoning By-law?

CIA

Is Council’s refusal of the planning instruments consistent with the policy direction to optimize intensification opportunities?

CIA

In the absence of a site plan, has the feasibility of the proposed development been demonstrated or justified in respect to access to the site, road widenings, the need for turning lanes and the sufficiency of parking?

County

Will the proposed development result in unacceptable adverse impacts including a loss of privacy and overlook?

County

Does the proposed development represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest?

CIA County of Norfolk

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc.

2. County of Norfolk

3. CIA Inspection Inc. and 1528112 Ontario Inc. (Reply)

ATTACHMENT 4