SolarBank Corp. v. Bruce (County), 2026 CanLII 12514

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 12, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000822

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: SolarBank Corp.

Subject: Consent

Description: C to sever a property for a Battery Energy Storage System

Reference Number: B-2025-075

Property Address: 157 7th Street SW

Municipality/UT: Arran-Elderslie/Bruce

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000822

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000822

OLT Case Name: SolarBank Corp. v. Bruce(County)

Heard: January 30, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

PowerBank Corporation (formerly SolarBank Corp.)

Piper Morley

County of Bruce

Did not attend

Municipality of Arran-Elderslie

Kevin Thompson Katy Qi (Articling Student) Jasmeen Bhangu (Articling Student)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY david brown ON JANuary 30, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1SolarBank Corp., now PowerBank Corporation (“Appellant”), filed an Application for Provisional Consent (“Application”) seeking approval to enter into a lease having a term greater than 21 years affecting a portion of the lands located at 157 7th Street SW in the community of Chelsey (“Subject Lands”). The Appellant proposes to construct an energy storage power station, access laneway, and power lines on the lands that are the subject of the proposed lease (“Leased Lands”).

2The County of Bruce (“County”) granted the Application, subject to seven conditions (“Provisional Consent”). One condition of the Provisional Consent required the Appellant to enter into an Agreement with the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie (“Municipality”), if deemed necessary by the Municipality, to satisfy all the requirements, financial or otherwise, of the Municipality.

3The Appellant submits that this condition is not reasonable. The condition allows the Municipality broad discretion and does not identify a specific and relevant land use impact. The Appellant appealed the condition to the Tribunal.

4The Appellant and the Municipality have negotiated a settlement of the Appeal (“Settlement”) and presented the Settlement to the Tribunal. The Settlement proposes a reframing of the condition that addresses the concerns of the Municipality and the concerns of the Appellant. The Settlement also included some minor rewording of other conditions.

5The Tribunal, having reviewed the terms of the Settlement and considered the evidence provided, found that the Provisional Consent with the modified conditions, as set out in the Settlement, has appropriate regard for the relevant matters set out in the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”), and is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

6The Tribunal allows the Appeal and grants the Provisional Consent, subject to the modified conditions set out in this Decision.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

7Subsection 50(3) of the Planning Act requires that no person shall enter into a lease agreement that has a term of 21 years or more for a portion of their lands without the approval of the municipality.

8The Appellant proposes to enter into a lease agreement with the owner of the Subject Lands for a period of greater than 21 years to facilitate the establishment of a Battery Energy Storage Station (“BESS”) on the Leased Lands.

9The Subject Lands has an area of 47.7 hectares (“ha”) and the Leased Lands have an area of 0.8 ha. The surrounding lands are comprised of low-density residential uses to the north, industrial uses to the east, industrial and agricultural uses to the south, and agricultural use and a sewage treatment plant to the west.

10The Appellant filed the Application with the County in February 2025, and the County granted Provisional Consent on July 29, 2025. The Provisional Consent included seven conditions. The Appellant took issue with Condition #2 and a related condition, Condition #4, and filed an Appeal pursuant to s. 53(19) of the Planning Act. Condition #2 and Condition #4 are set out below:

2. That the owner enter into an Agreement with the Municipality, if deemed necessary by the Municipality of Arran-Elderslie, to satisfy all the requirements, financial or otherwise of the Municipality, which may include, but shall not be limited to, the provision of parkland (or cash-in-lieu of land), roads, installation of services, facilities, drainage and the timing and payment of a development charge.

3. That the Municipality provide written confirmation to the Approval Authority that the municipal conditions as imposed herein have been fulfilled.

11The Appellant takes the position that Condition #2 is unreasonably vague, and the use of the phrase “if deemed necessary” provides a broad discretion to impose agreements which may not be related to a defined planning purpose. Condition #2 does not identify any land planning use impact that would necessitate an agreement to address. Condition #2 is not necessary to ensure the orderly development of the Municipality, does not address matters of provincial interest, and is not applicable within the scope of the Application, as required by s. 51(24) of the Planning Act. Condition #4 relates to Condition #2, which if waived, Condition #4 is no longer required.

12The Municipality submitted a Party status request with the Tribunal. The Municipality is a lower-tier municipality within the County and requested status in the proceedings as the conditions at issue arise from the request of the Municipality.

13The Appellant expressed no objection to the request. Tribunal granted Party status to the Municipality.

14The Subject Lands is within the Primary Urban Communities and Rural Areas designations of the County Official Plan (“COP”). The proposed BESS will be located within the Primary Urban Communities. This designation provides for a range of uses, including industrial uses.

15The Municipality Official Plan (“MOP”) locates the Subject Lands within the Industrial designation where both light and heavy industrial uses are permitted.

16The Municipality Zoning By-law No. 36-09 zones the Subject Lands BP1 – Business Park 1 and M2 – Extractive Industrial. The Leased Lands are within the BP1 zone, which permits light industry, and the Municipality determined that the proposed use is permitted.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

17The Tribunal, when considering an appeal filed under s. 53(19) of the Planning Act, is guided by the powers set out in s. 53(34) of the Planning Act.

18Subsection 53(34) of the Planning Act provides that, on an appeal under s. 53(19) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal may make any decision that the council could have made on the original application. Therefore, the Tribunal, when considering the appeal, shall have regard for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

19Further, s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act requires the Tribunal has regard for the decision of the County.

20The Tribunal’s decision shall be consistent with the PPS, as required by s. 3.5 of the Planning Act.

21Having considered the above, the Tribunal must then be satisfied that the Application represents good planning and is in the public interest.

EVIDENCE

22The Tribunal is in receipt of the uncontested opinion evidence contained in the Affidavit of Robert MacFarlane dated January 27, 2026. Mr. MacFarlane, a Registered Professional Planner, having expertise in the area of land use planning, was qualified to assist the Tribunal with opinion evidence in respect of this matter.

23Section 2 of the Planning Act sets out matters of provincial interest to which the Tribunal shall have regard for in making its decision. Mr. MacFarlane proffered that the proposed BESS facility implements matters of provincial interest, including that the establishment of a facility that will contribute to making efficient use of energy and resources, minimize waste, and that represents a technology that is responsive to a changing climate.

24Mr. MacFarlane identified the relevant policies contained in the PPS and proffered that the Application is consistent with the PPS as it will facilitate the establishment of an energy storage system that is permitted and encouraged in the PPS. The BESS is an energy storage system that will utilize the existing infrastructure, and support efforts to reduce green gas emissions.

25The Settlement was achieved with the modification of Condition #2, as follows:

2. That the owner satisfy the following requirements of the Municipality, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Consent:

a. All taxes shall be paid in full;

b. An entrance permit shall be obtained for any new access road to the subject lands;

c. Site plan approval shall be obtained, and the executed site plan agreement registered on title to the subject lands (if permitted by the Land Registry Office); and,

d. All required parkland dedication (cash-in-lieu) shall be paid in accordance with By-law No. 48-2024.

26The other conditions of Provisional Consent remained substantially unchanged, with some minor re-wording to clarify that the approval authority is the County.

27Mr. MacFarlane proffered that the modified conditions have appropriate regard for the relevant matters set out in the Planning Act and that the modified conditions are consistent with the PPS.

28Mr. MacFarlane recommended that the Tribunal grant the Application and attach the modified conditions to the Provisional Consent.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

29The Tribunal, having reviewed and considered the materials filed together with the uncontested expert evidence of Mr. MacFarlane, is satisfied and accepts the opinions of Mr. MacFarlane that the Provisional Consent, subject to the modified conditions, has appropriate regard for the relevant matters in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

30Subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act requires the Tribunal to have regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The Tribunal finds that the Application will facilitate a use of the Lease Lands that represents an efficient use and conservation of energy, will protect public health in safely providing a reliable energy source, and will mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

31Further, in consideration of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal finds that the Application conforms with the COP and MOP, is suitable for the purpose for which consent is requested, and the consent will optimize the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy. The proposal is subject to site plan control and the modified conditions of Provisional Consent include the requirement that the Appellant obtain site plan approval.

32The Tribunal is satisfied that sufficient regard has been had for the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.

33The Tribunal considered the applicable policies of the PPS. Policy 2.3.1 requires growth be focussed in settlement areas, existing infrastructure be optimized, and a prioritization on planning and investment in infrastructure. The Tribunal finds that the proposed use of the Leased Lands is consistent with this policy direction. The proposed energy storage facility represents a use that supports energy conservation and efficiency, thereby reducing green gas emissions as required in Policy 2.9.1.

34Policy 3.8.1 of the PPS specifically identifies an energy storage system as a use that will accommodate current and projected energy needs.

35The Tribunal finds that the Application is consistent with the PPS. The modified conditions support the approval of the Application.

36The Tribunal, having reviewed the decision of the County and the conditions attached to the Provisional Consent, finds that the modified conditions are consistent with the County’s decision and refines with greater specificity the requirements of the Municipality.

37The Tribunal is in receipt of a letter dated January 15, 2026, which outlines that the County has reviewed the modified conditions and understands that modifications are to clarify the wording of the conditions. The County advised that the original intent of the approval is maintained, and no objections were expressed by the County.

38The Tribunal finds that the Application represents good planning and is in the public interest.

39The Tribunal allows the appeal and grants Provisional Consent, subject to the modified conditions set out below.

ORDER

40THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the modified conditions to the decision of the Council of the County of Bruce, dated July 29, 2025, as follows:

1. That this approval is for a lease of a portion of the subject lands and not to create a new lot. The transfer schedule shall reflect the term of the lease.

2. That the owner satisfy the following requirements of the Municipality, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Consent:

a. All taxes shall be paid in full;

b. An entrance permit shall be obtained for any new access road to the subject lands;

c. Site plan approval shall be obtained, and the executed site plan agreement registered on title to the subject lands (if permitted by the Land Registry Office); and

d. All required parkland dedication (cash-in-lieu) shall be paid in accordance with By-law No. 48-2024.

3. That a Reference Plan (survey that is registered) reflecting the area subject to the lease, be completed, and a copy filed with the Municipal Clerk and a digital copy (preferred) or a hard copy be filed with the County of Bruce, or an exemption from the Reference Plan be received from the County of Bruce.

4. That the Municipality provide written confirmation to the County of Bruce that the municipal conditions as imposed herein have been fulfilled.

5. That the owner provide an Archaeological Assessment that has included engagement with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation, in accordance with its process and standards, has been completed by an archaeologist licensed in the Province of Ontario and has been submitted to the appropriate Ministry for entry into the Ontario Public Register of Archaeological Reports; and that the owner satisfy the County of Bruce that recommendations of the Archaeological Assessment (if any) have been, or will be, implemented;

6. That, pursuant to Section 53(42) of the Planning Act, the ‘Certificate of Consent’ be affixed to the deed within two years of the giving of the Notice of Decision. (Note: Section 53(43) of the Planning Act requires that the transaction approved by this consent must be carried out within two years of the issuance of the certificate (i.e., Stamping of the deed)).

7. That the applicant pays the applicable County of Bruce consent certification fee at the time of certification of the deeds.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN

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.