Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 16, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001152
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Vincenzo Gagliardi
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To establish a cemetery
Reference Number: D11-18-11
Property Address: 3369 Line 13
Municipality/UT: Bradford West Gwillimbury/Simcoe
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001152
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001085
OLT Case Name: Gagliardi v. Bradford West Gwillimbury (Town)
Heard: September 5, 2025, by Telephone Conference Call
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Vince Gagliardi | Russell Cheeseman Stephanie Fleming |
| Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury | Leo Longo |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY nazanin eisazadeh ON September 5, 2025, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link To Order
1This matter pertains to the appeal filed by Vince Gagliardi (“Applicant”) pursuant to s.41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Planning Act”), for approval of a Site Plan Application (“SPA”) by the Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury (“Town”) respecting the development of a cemetery at the lands municipally known as 3369 Line 13 within the Town (“Subject Property”).
2This matter was previously scheduled to proceed to a Merit Hearing on Thursday, August 7, 2025, which hearing event was converted to a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to deal with preliminary issues. The CMC resulted in an Order and directions on revisions to the Issues List (“IL”) for which a revised Procedural Order (“PO”) was due to be filed by Friday, August 15, 2025.
3The Parties convened the present Status Hearing to address a dispute arising from the directions and Order of this Tribunal dated August 8, 2025, and in particular, to dispose of a disagreement regarding the language of a newly revised draft issue (identified as Issue No.6 in the draft Procedural Order).
4The language of the impugned draft issue is reproduced as follows (emphasis added):
- Is the scale and phasing of the proposed development consistent with demonstrated need, the PPS 2024, and the matters of provincial interest set out in sections 2(h), (i), (m) and (n) of the Planning Act, and can appropriate phasing be secured under section 41(7) of the Planning Act?
5The issue was drafted by Mr. Longo. Mr. Longo submits that the wording as drafted is appropriate. In support of his position, Mr. Longo refers to s.2.1.6(a) of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) (emphasis added):
- Planning authorities should support the achievement of complete communities by:
a) accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses (including schools and associated child care facilities, long-term care facilities, places of worship and cemeteries), recreation, parks and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs;
6Mr. Longo argues that the PPS itself specifies cemeteries and requires approval authorities to look at the question of long-term needs. He submits it is the PPS policy that guides this Tribunal in dealing with a SPA, and in this case, the issue of whether phasing the SPA is appropriate on account of the Applicant’s own evidence on the demonstrated need as presented in its case under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 33, as amended (“Funeral Act”) which was disposed of by way of the Decision of this Tribunal dated November 7, 2024 (“Funeral Act Hearing”). Mr. Longo submits that the intention is not to reargue the question of need that was previously before this Tribunal under the Funeral Act Hearing. Rather, it is to reference that evidence when determining the relevant considerations on the SPA, and particularly consistency with s.2.1.6 of the PPS and phasing the development in relation to planning for the long-term needs of the community.
7Mr. Cheeseman concedes that it is for the Town to raise and draft what it deems are appropriate issues to be addressed. Mr. Cheeseman takes no issue with the fact that the phasing of the development has been raised as an issue to be decided. Rather, he states that the question regarding demonstrated need is not a point agreed to by the Parties. Mr. Cheeseman submits that the issue, as worded, is prejudicial to the Applicant as it assumes that need is a requirement for consideration on a SPA, which he states the Applicant will argue is not the case. In support of his position, Mr. Cheeseman points to s.41 of the Planning Act, which he states grounds the jurisdiction of this Tribunal on a SPA appeal which deals strictly with the fine tuning of a development, including plans and drawings, with no mention of “demonstrated need” to issues related to a SPA. Accordingly, Mr. Cheeseman submits that if the Town wishes to raise its issue as drafted, a precursor is required to first dispose of the issue as to whether “need” is a requirement for approval of a SPA.
8While Mr. Longo is of the view that the additional precursor issue requested by Mr. Cheeseman was assumed, he was agreeable to including it as an additional, but separate, issue.
9The Parties disagree as to the appropriate wording of the additional precursor issue. Mr. Cheeseman requested the following language (emphasis added):
Is need a requirement for site plan approval, and if so, has the Applicant demonstrated same.
10Mr. Longo requested the issue be revised as follows (emphasis added):
Is need a valid consideration when dealing with a site plan approval, and if so, has the Applicant demonstrated same.
11Mr. Longo argues that the term “requirement” is too restrictive and that it ignores s.2.1.6 of the PPS. He states that when dealing with planning matters, the question is not about what is “required”. Rather, planning matters are about valid planning considerations and, therefore, must consider what the appropriate and “valid considerations” are to be accounted for.
12Mr. Cheeseman disagrees, pointing to s.41 of the Planning Act as this Tribunal’s jurisdiction which speaks to specific matters on a SPA as to what must be done; for example, respecting the plans, drawings, massing, conceptual requirements, etc. He adds that cemeteries are also specifically regulated under the Funeral Act in respect of such things as the number of plots, licensing requirements, financial securities, etc.
13The Tribunal finds that the language set out by Mr. Cheeseman, regarding what is required for site plan approval, is the more appropriate language for an issue on the present SPA appeal. This Tribunal is a creature of statute, governed by administrative law and must be guided by the relevant and applicant statutory and legislative framework, as well as the policies and plans in effect at a given time. It may not import what it deems are valid considerations on a planning approval and must instead be guided by what the legislative and policy framework requires on an analysis of good planning and for approval of any planning application.
14Accordingly, the Tribunal directs that a new Issue No. 6 be inserted as follows:
- Is need a requirement for site plan approval, and if so, has the Applicant demonstrated same.
15The former Issue No. 6 shall remain unchanged except that it shall now be identified as Issue No. 7. The former Issue No. 7 shall now be identified as Issue No. 8
16The Parties subsequently submitted a new PO with a revised IL which reflects the direction of this Tribunal, and which this Tribunal has endorsed. The final PO as approved by this Tribunal is included in this Decision as Schedule 1.
ORDER
17The Procedural Order inclusive of Issues List which shall govern the Hearing of this matter is set out at Schedule 1.
18A four-day Merit Hearing in respect of the SPA Appeal remains scheduled to proceed on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. by Video Hearing.
19This Member is not seized in respect of the balance of the matters that pertain to this proceeding or of the Hearing on the Merits.
20There will be no further notice.
“N. Eisazadeh”
n. eisazadeh
MEMBER
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.
Schedule 1