Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 19, 2026

CASE NO.: OLT-25-000701

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

Applicant and Appellant: Stylux Bowmanville Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of 97 three-story townhouse units. Reference Number: COPA2024-0007 Property Address: 500 Mearns Avenue Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000701 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000701 OLT Case Name: Stylux Bowmanville Inc. v. Clarington (Municipality)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Stylux Bowmanville Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of 97 three-story townhouse units. Reference Number: ZBA2024-0031 Property Address: 500 Mearns Avenue Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000703 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000701

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Stylux Bowmanville Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit the development of 97 three-story townhouse units. Reference Number: S-C 2024-0017 Property Address: 500 Mearns Avenue Municipality/UT: Clarington/Durham OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000704 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000701

BEFORE:

T.F. NG VICE-CHAIR

Thursday, the 19th day of February, 2026

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the Decision issued on February 2, 2026, the Procedural Order, as agreed to between the Parties and attached hereto as Schedule “A”, shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing, which is scheduled to commence on November 30, 2026. The Tribunal has set aside 15 days for the hearing.

“Matthew D.J. Bryan”

MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN REGISTRAR

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 “A”

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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

1. The video hearing will begin on November 30, 2026 at 10:00 A.M., and continue until December 11, 2026. The hearing will then reconvene on January 11, 2027 and continue until January 15, 2027. No further notice shall be required.

2. The length of the hearing will be approximately 15 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.

3. The parties and participants (see Attachment “4” for the meaning of these terms) identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment “1” to this Order.

4. The issues for the hearing are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment “2” to this Order. 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, except if the Issues List is modified on consent of the parties, through mediation or pursuant to a settlement between the parties.

5. The order of evidence for the hearing is listed 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.

6. 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. 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.

7. 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

8. If the applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, updated supporting documents and report, to the other parties on or before June 19, 2026. The applicant acknowledges that any revisions to the proposal after that date without the consent of the parties may be grounds for the Tribunal to adjourn 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 are intended to be called. This list must be delivered on or before July 20, 2026, 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(s) of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before August 21, 2026, to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues shall be filed with the OLT case coordinator on or before September 4, 2026.

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13. 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 anticipated evidence as in paragraph 13. 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 September 18, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case coordinator in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before September 18, 2026, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and the OLT case coordinator 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. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case coordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before October 23, 2026, in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

16. On or before October 26, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before November 9, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties and the OLT case coordinator 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.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case coordinator on or before November 16, 2026.

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 a witness’ written evidence or expert witness statement 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 prior to 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 November 23, 2026 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 electronic and, if requested by the Tribunal, also 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 Rule 7.

23. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, or on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation.

24. 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.

This Member is not seized. So Orders the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
June 19, 2026	Applicant to provide copies of any revised proposal, including all revised plan and drawings (if any)
July 20, 2026	Parties to exchange lists of witnesses (names, disciplines, CVs and intended order to be called)
August 21, 2026	Meetings of Expert Witnesses
September 4, 2026	Parties to file Statements of Agreed Facts and Issues
September 18, 2026	Exchange of Witness Statements, summonsed witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
October 23, 2026	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
October 26, 2026	Parties to advise OLT if all scheduled hearing days are required
November 9, 2026	Exchange of visual evidence
November 16, 2026	Joint Document Book to be filed
November 23, 2026	Parties to file hearing plan
November 30, 2026	Hearing commences

Attachment 1

LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

Parties

1. Stylux Bowmanville Inc. Mark Flowers / Lauren Yan Lin Cao Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Email: markf@davieshowe.com / laurenc@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4513 / 416-263-4524

2. Municipality of Clarington R. Andrew Biggart Ketcheson Hart & Biggart 1 Eva Road, Suite 303 Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5 Email: abiggart@khblaw.ca Tel: 416-622-6601

3. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Tim Duncan Fogler, Rubinoff LLP 40 King Street West, Suite 2400 P.O. Box #215 Toronto, ON M5H 3Y2 Email: tduncan@foglers.com Tel: 416-941-8817

Participants

1. Nadine Taylor Email: nadine1980taylor@gmail.com

Attachment 2

ISSUES LIST

The identification of an issue on this list does not mean that all parties agree that the issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate for or relevant to the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

Issues List of the Municipality of Clarington

1. Do the applications have regard to matters of Provincial interest identified in Section 2 (a), (f), (h), (h.1), (j), (p), and (r) of the Planning Act (“Act”)?

2. Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and in particular policies 2.2.1 a) and c), 2.3.1 1), 2.3.1.2 a), 3.1.1, 3.6.8 f), 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.1.5 d), 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.8, and 6.2.1?

3. Does the proposal conform with Section 3.1.20 of Envision Durham given no residential units affordable to low and moderate income households are proposed?

4. Does the proposal conform with Section 3.3.3 (d) of Envision Durham and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed development is compatible with and will integrate with the surrounding land uses and built form?

5. Does the proposal conform with Section 7.6.1 of Envision Durham and has the appellant demonstrated that the development is directed away from natural hazard lands or human-made hazards?

6. Does the proposal conform with Section 7.6.2 of Envision Durham and has the appellant demonstrated that the intensification, which includes change in use, lot creation and/or additional units, is directed away from natural hazard lands?

7. Does the proposal conform with Section 7.6.9 of Envision Durham and has the appellant demonstrated that there has been collaboration with the Municipality of Clarington and the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority to ensure that the watershed plans, and other strategies and initiatives have considered the impacts of a changing climate that increases the risks associated with natural hazards and has the appellant provided recommendations to mitigate such risks?

8. Does the proposal conform with Section 7.6.14 of Envision Durham and has the appellant implemented remediation and mitigation opportunities within natural hazard lands?

9. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.4.5 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that a refinement is required and provided formal confirmation from the Province that said refinement is required?

10. Does the proposal conform with Table 3-1 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated the need for the proposal to remove all natural features on the site and reduce associated setbacks? The natural features being: stream valleys, significant woodland, watercourse, and habitat of endangered species.

11. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.5.5 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that the development incorporated the applicable objectives and requirements of the respective watershed and subwatershed plan?

12. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.4.8 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated the need to remove the natural heritage feature and/or hydrologically sensitive feature and its associated vegetation protection zone?

13. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.4.10 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that a self-sustaining Vegetation Protection Zone (“VPZ”) will be planted, maintained or restored in order to protect any on-site or adjacent natural heritage feature and/or hydrologically sensitive feature?

14. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.4.12 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that any natural heritage feature and/or hydrologically sensitive feature which has been identified by the Municipality, the Region, the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority or the Province does not have proposed development or alteration in any way?

15. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.4.13 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated through the Environmental Impact Study that the proposed development does not have unacceptable negative impacts on the natural heritage system?

16. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.4.16 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant identified that the proposed development limits and the associated VPZ is identified in the Environmental Impact Study and in no instance is less than the minimum VPZ identified in Table 3-1 of the Clarington Official Plan?

17. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.6.7 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated the conservation and wise use of portable water, surface water and groundwater resources?

18. Does the proposal conform with policy 3.7.5 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that no new buildings or structures are proposed on lands identified as natural hazard lands?

19. Does the proposal conform with policy 5.4.1 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed development will be designed to respect and reinforce the physical character of the established neighbourhood, be consistent with the built form of the neighborhood, and have regard to expectation for high-quality architectural design and sustainable building materials, and have they maximized opportunities to improve accessibility, pedestrian and cycling systems, neighbourhood and transit connections, and to reduce energy, water and resource use?

20. Does the proposal conform with policy 9.4.5 a) to j) of the Clarington Official Plan and has the proposal been developed on the basis of the locational criteria of Table 4-3, the urban design policies of Chapter 5 and site development criteria outlined in a) through j)?

21. Does the proposal conform with policy 20.2.1 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated, through appropriate technical studies, how they will manage the development impacts on watercourses in order to enhance water quality, protect fish habitat and to prevent increases to flood and erosion hazards?

22. Does the proposal conform with policy 20.2.2 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that the development promotes green infrastructure measures, including low impact development, as part of the overall stormwater management strategy?

23. Does the proposal conform with policy 20.3.2 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed stormwater management plans are prepared in accordance with the applicable watershed and/or subwatershed plan as well as provide for an integrated approach that protects the ecological health of watersheds, improves resiliency, and contributes to the protection of human life and property during storm events?

24. Does the proposal conform with policy 20.3.5 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated, through the stormwater management report, how the approved subwatershed plan or master drainage plan will be implemented on the site of the proposed development in accordance with Best Management Practices including the Municipality of Clarington Engineering Design Guidelines, applicable watershed/subwatershed plans, and provincial stormwater management guidance?

25. Does the proposal conform with policy 20.3.7 of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed stormwater management facilities are not located on lands within the natural heritage system or designated as Environmental Protection Area?

26. Does the proposal conform with policy 20.3.8 (a) to (f) of the Clarington Official Plan and has the appellant demonstrated that the proposed design of the stormwater management facilities are constructed in accordance with the Municipality’s Engineering Design Guidelines?

27. Would the proposed Zoning By-law requirements contravene section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act?

28. Does the proposed Zoning By-law amendment provide adequate direction for the preferred built form and function of the proposal, including through detailed provisions for height, density, massing, setbacks, and parking?

29. Do the submitted plans and studies justify the removal of natural features and the watercourse in its entirety?

30. Does the proposed development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

31. Is there the adequate provision of infrastructure to support the proposed development?

32. Should the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment be subject to a holding provision that requires the landowner to address, to the satisfaction of the Municipality, the following matters: a. services and municipal works; b. measures to protect natural areas; c. measures to mitigate the impact of development; d. submission of technical studies; e. remediation of contaminated soil, if necessary; and f. legal agreements with the Municipality, the Region and any other agency (i.e. subdivision, site plan, servicing).

33. Do the submitted plans and studies adhere to Section 2.4 of Clarington’s Traffic Impact Study Guidelines and provide an appropriate planning horizon and background traffic forecast?

34. Does the site design have regard to the appropriate design speed for sight analysis as per the TAC guidelines?

35. Does the Functional Servicing Report adhere to the Municipality of Clarington Design Guidelines and MECP requirements?

36. Does the Hydrogeological Assessment Report provide the required groundwater monitoring details?

37. Does the Geotechnical Report provide appropriate justification for the development based on borehole log information?

Issues List of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (“CLOCA”)

38. Do the proposed development and the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision (together, the "Applications") have regard to matters of provincial interest identified in subsections 2(a), (c), (h), (m), (o), (p) and (s) of the Planning Act?

39. Are the proposed development and the Applications consistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (the "PPS"), including policies 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.8, 6.1.8, 6.2.1 and 6.2.7?

40. Do the proposed development and the Applications conform with the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan ("Envision Durham"), including policies 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.9 and 7.6.14?

41. Do the proposed development and the Applications conform with the policies of the Clarington Official Plan, including policies 3.5.4, 3.5.5, 3.6.7, 3.7.4, 3.7.5, 20.2.1, 20.3.2, 20.3.5, 20.3.7 and 20.3.8?

42. Do the proposed development and the Applications have appropriate regard for the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Policy and Procedural Document For Land Use Planning and Regulation, 2024, including policies 3.2.1, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.7, 3.8, 5.3.1 and 6.3.1?

43. Are the proposed development and the Applications prohibited pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act?

44. Given CLOCA’s issues above, does the proposed development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

Issues List of Stylux Bowmanville Inc.

45. If the draft plan of subdivision is to be approved, what are the appropriate conditions of draft plan approval?

Attachment 3

Order of Evidence

1. Stylux Bowmanville Inc.
2. Municipality of Clarington
3. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
4. Reply of Stylux Bowmanville Inc. (If any)

Attachment 4

MEANING OF TERMS USED IN THE PROCEDURAL ORDER

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.