Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 5, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000826

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

Appellant: Cornerstone Group Investments Inc Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To facilitate the establishment of a livestock trailer washing facility and associated parking Reference Number: ZBA 38 of 2024 Property Address: 5507 Co-op Street, 5309 and 5310 Leyton Street Municipality/UT: Plympton-Wyoming/Lambton OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000826 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000826 OLT Case Name: Cornerstone Group Investments Inc v. Plympton- Wyoming (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: Cornerstone Group Investments Inc Subject: Site Plan Description: To facilitate the establishment of a livestock trailer washing facility and associated parking Reference Number: None Assigned Property Address: 5507 Co-op Street, 5309 and 5310 Leyton Street Municipality/UT: Plympton-Wyoming/Lambton OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000825 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000826 OLT Case Name: Cornerstone Group Investments Inc v. Plympton- Wyoming (Town)

Heard: February 19, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Cornerstone Group Investments Inc.	E. Davis
Plympton-Wyoming (Town)	K. Strong
Jessica Jessome	E. Kay

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN ON FEBRUARY 19, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purposes of organizing the hearing of appeals by Cornerstone Group Investments Inc. (“Appellant”) against the failure of the Town of Plympton-Wyoming to decide on Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control applications in relation to the lands known municipally as 5507 Co-op Street, 5309 and 5310 Leyton Street (“Subject Properties”). The applications seek to permit the construction of a livestock trailer washing facility and associated parking.

2The Tribunal received an Affidavit of Service dated January 16, 2026, confirming that Notice of this CMC was properly given and, as such, no further notice is required.

STATUS REQUESTS

Wanstead Concerned Citizens Group

3In response to the Notice, the Tribunal received one written request for Party status from Wanstead Concerned Citizens Group (“Group”), an unincorporated neighbourhood association consisting of 13 nearby residents. No other written requests were received and no other individuals or entities appeared at the CMC to request status of any kind.

4The Tribunal heard that the Group has actively participated in opposition to the proposed ZBA and its members are directly affected by the proposed development of the Subject Properties. Concerns in relation thereto include, but are not limited to: altered drainage and surface runoff patterns, increased groundwater saturation around foundations and yards and potential risks to private well water. The Party request form indicates that the Group intends to provide direct factual evidence from residents living beside the Subject Properties, localized rural and hydrological observations, rural community context and compatibility concerns and perspectives not otherwise available to the Tribunal.

5Counsel for the Appellant objected to the granting of Party status to the Group, given the unincorporated status thereof, in advance of the CMC by way of a letter submitted to the Tribunal and the prospective party. The letter made clear that the Appellant would not, however, oppose the granting of Participant status to the group’s 13 members. Counsel for the Town took no position on the request.

Ruling

6The Tribunal can only grant status to a person, defined in the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure as an individual or a corporation. Accordingly, the Party Status request of the Group was denied on the basis that it is an unincorporated entity and therefore does not meet the definition of a person.

Jessica Jessome

7Counsel for the Group advised that the 13 individual Group members or, in the alternative, one individual Group member would seek Party status. Following a brief discussion, it was determined that all of the Group members are aligned in interest and, therefore, evidence and arguments which might be presented by those individuals, if granted such status, would be unnecessarily duplicative. Accordingly, the Tribunal declined to entertain 13 individual requests for Party status and counsel for the Group then advised that only Jessica Jessome would seek Party status.

8Counsel for the Town took no position on the request, while counsel for the Appellant provided submissions in opposition thereto. He submitted that the observations and perspectives to be offered by Ms. Jessome and/or other members of the Group are more appropriately communicated through a written Participant statement(s), and argued Ms. Jessome’s presence is not necessary for the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues. The Tribunal was taken to the “obvious factors” to be considered when determining if there are reasonable grounds to grant Party status, as enumerated in 1137528 Ontario Ltd. v. Oakville (Town), 2010 CarswellOnt 7078 (OMB) (“Oakville”) and reproduced below:

(a) Has an appeal already been filed in relation to the policy which is sought to be challenged? (“Prior Appeal”)

(b) To what extent is the public interest advanced if party status is granted? (“Public Interest”)

(c) What prejudice, if any, would be suffered by the municipality or any other party to the proceeding? (“Prejudice”)

(d) Does the person seeking party status have a direct interest in the policy? (“Direct Interest”)

(e) Will granting party status avoid a multiplicity of proceedings? (“Multiplicity of Proceedings”)

(f) What is the historical background of the policy sought to be challenged? (“Historical Background”)

9With reference to some of the more applicable factors, it was submitted that the Town intends to call the evidence of 9 expert witnesses including, but not limited to: a land use planner, hydrological and geotechnical engineers, and an agricultural specialist. Based on the foregoing, it was argued that the Town will adequately represent the public interest, including the interests of Ms. Jessome and other Group members. It was further submitted that granting the request would result in duplicative argument and evidence, increasing the time and cost of the hearing, which would be prejudicial to the statutory Parties.

10Counsel for Ms. Jessome submitted that her interests could not be adequately represented by the Town, given that the Town’s interests are necessarily broader in scope. He argued that the perspective of a directly affected neighbouring landowner would, in fact, assist the Tribunal in adjudicating effectively and completely, advising that Ms. Jessome would call expert evidence from a land use planner. He added that the intended planning witness reviewed the documents on record and provided a professional opinion on the proposed development and the land use planning issues, which differs from those of the planners for the statutory Parties. Finally, it was submitted that Ms. Jessome does not intend to raise additional issues for adjudication, having reviewed the draft issues list provided to the Tribunal in advance of the CMC.

11Following a brief discussion regarding Ms. Jessome’s intent to call lay witness evidence, the Tribunal was advised that it would not be her intent to call the other 12 Group members to provide same. Counsel for Ms. Jessome advised that he anticipates the presentation of lay witness evidence would take approximately 1-2 hours.

Ruling

12The Tribunal granted Ms. Jessome’s request, having been persuaded that the perspective of a directly affected neighbouring landowner and the expert evidence called in relation thereto (which differs from the evidence to be provided by the Town and the Appellant) will assist in adjudicating the appeal effectively and completely. The private interests of Ms. Jessome may not be appropriately represented by the Town, which may provide the Tribunal with broader planning evidence that doesn’t adequately address Ms. Jessome’s concerns and does not provide the unique perspective of affected landowners.

13In the view of the Tribunal, the addition of one Party who intends to call one land use planning witness, 1 to 2 hours of lay witness testimony and does not intend to raise additional issues beyond those already identified by the other Parties, will not result in an unnecessarily long or costly hearing, such that the Appellant and the Town would suffer undue prejudice.

14The Tribunal declined to place any specific restrictions on Ms. Jessome in terms of presenting her case based on her counsel’s acknowledgement and agreement to adhere to the Tribunal’s expectations that all Parties endeavour to avoid duplicative argument and evidence to ensure an efficient and cost-effective hearing. Should there be a need for further case management in this regard, the Parties remain free to request another CMC or a Telephone Case Conference (“TCC”).

15Based on the granting of Party status to Ms. Jessome and the fact that her interests are directly aligned with those of the remaining Group members, the Tribunal did not entertain any requests for Participant status from those members, finding that to do so would result in unnecessary duplication of materials to be considered at a future hearing.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND HEARING DATES

16A draft procedural order including a detailed list of 38 issues was submitted in advance of the CMC. While the Tribunal was advised that the Parties intend to engage in some refinement of the issues and, if possible, scoping of same, hearing dates were scheduled on the strength of the detail provided in the current draft issues list.

17At the request of the Parties, a three-week video hearing will commence at 10:00 am on Monday April 12, 2027. Parties 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/692665589;

Access Code: 692-665-589

18Parties 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.

19Persons 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: 647-497-9373 (Toll Free): 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 692-665-589.

20Individuals 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.

21The Parties are reminded of the availability of Tribunal-assisted mediation and of the expectation that they are to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

22As of March 30, 2026, all hearing events are governed by the Tribunal’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Direction. This Practice Direction requires a party, participant, or witness to include a declaration within each submitted document if generative AI was used to create or generate content.

UPCOMING DEADLINES

23In an effort to ensure an accurate and complete record, counsel for Ms. Jessome was directed to submit a written Party status request form which reiterates the information provided and discussed at today’s CMC, copying the statutory Parties no later than noon on Friday, February 27, 2026. That status request was received, as directed and has been added to the Tribunal’s record.

24The Parties are directed to provide a finalized draft procedural order and issues list no later than noon on Friday, April 10, 2026. Should the Tribunal not receive the finalized draft PO and IL (or a request for an extension) by the specified deadline, the scheduled hearing dates will be removed from the Tribunal’s calendar and the Parties will be required to attend a TCC to provide an update to the Tribunal and discuss the possibility of rescheduling the Hearing.

ORDER

25The case management directives above are so ordered.

26There will be no further notice and this Member is not seized, but may be available for further case management should the Tribunal’s calendar permit.

“S. Braun”

S. Braun VICE-CHAIR

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.