Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town), 2026 CanLII 20133

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

March 3, 2026

CASE NO.:

OLT-25-000788

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit the redevelopment of the Subject Site for three mixed-use blocks with a total of 1,481 residential units

Reference Number:

D09OPA24.002

Property Address:

130 Mountainview Road North

Municipality/UT:

Halton Hills/Halton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000788

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000788

OLT Case Name:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit the redevelopment of the Subject Site for three mixed-use blocks with a total of 1,481 residential units

Reference Number:

D14ZBA24.009

Property Address:

130 Mountainview Road North

Municipality/UT:

Halton Hills/Halton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000789

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000788

OLT Case Name:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc.

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description:

To permit the redevelopment of the Subject Site for three mixed-use blocks with a total of 1,481 residential units

Reference Number:

D12SUB24.002

Property Address:

130 Mountainview Road North

Municipality/UT:

Halton Hills/Halton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000791

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000788

OLT Case Name:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town)

BEFORE:

T.F. NG

Friday, the 27th

VICE-CHAIR

day of February, 2026

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that further to the Decision issued on January 19, 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 23, 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.

ISSUE DATE: February 18, 2026 CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000788

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit the redevelopment of the Subject Site for three mixed-use blocks with a total of 1,481 residential units

Reference Number:

D09OPA24.002

Property Address:

130 Mountainview Road North

Municipality/UT:

Halton Hills/Halton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000788

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000788

OLT Case Name:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc.

Subject:

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

Description:

To permit the redevelopment of the Subject Site for three mixed-use blocks with a total of 1,481 residential units

Reference Number:

D14ZBA24.009

Property Address:

130 Mountainview Road North

Municipality/UT:

Halton Hills/Halton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000789

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000788

OLT Case Name:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc.

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description:

To permit the redevelopment of the Subject Site for three mixed-use blocks with a total of 1,481 residential units

Reference Number:

D12SUB24.002

Property Address:

130 Mountainview Road North

Municipality/UT:

Halton Hills/Halton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-25-000791

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-25-000788

OLT Case Name:

Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. v. Halton Hills (Town)

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 November 23, 2026.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is three (3) weeks. 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. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in 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.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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 4 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 July 24, 2026, 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 August 14, 2026, and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before August 25, 2026.

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 October 9, 2026, the parties shall provide copies of their 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 October 9, 2026, 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 October 19, 2026, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before November 6, 2026, 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. On or before October 23, 2026, the parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT’s Case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence 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 November 13, 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 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 November 16, 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 submitted electronically and in hard copy, if requested by the Tribunal. 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.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

Date

Hearing event

July 24, 2026

Exchange of List of Witnesses

August 14, 2026

Expert Witness Meeting

August 25, 2026

Filing of Statement (s) of Agreed Facts and Issues

October 9, 2026

Exchange of Witness Statements

October 9, 2026

Delivery of Participant Statements

October 19, 2026

Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required

November 6, 2026

Exchange of Visual Evidence

October 23, 2026

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements

November 13, 2026

Filing of Joint Document Book

November 16, 2026

Filing of Hearing Plan

November 23, 2026

Hearing Commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

Parties:

1. Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc.

WeirFoulds LLP 4100-66 Wellington Street West Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 Denise Baker Email: dbaker@weirfoulds.com Tel: 416-947-5090

1. Town of Halton Hills

Thomson Rogers LLP 3100-390 Bay Street Toronto, ON M5H 1W2 Jeffrey J. Wilker Email: jwilker@trlaw.com Tel: 416-868-3118

Al Burton Email: aburton@trlaw.com Tel: 416-868-3113

Participants:

1. Julie Rossall

Email: 130workinggroup@gmail.com Tel: 416-804-8004

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

Planning Act

1. Do the Proposed OPA, ZBA and Draft Plan of Subdivision (collectively, “Applications”) have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act?

2. Does the proposed Plan of Subdivision meet the criteria set out in section 51 (24) of the Planning Act?

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”)

1. Are the Applications consistent with the PPS including sections 2.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.4, 2.4.1.1, 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.2, 2.4.2.3, 2.8.1.1, 2.8.1.2, 2.8.1.3, 2.8.2.3, 2.9.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.2, 3.4.1, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.6.1,3.6.2, 3.6.8, 3.9.1 and 5.3.2?

Town of Halton Hills Official Plan

1. Are the Applications in harmony with, support and advance the Town of Halton Hills’ approved Official Plan, including the Georgetown GO Secondary Plan?

2. Do the Applications conform with the proposed Georgetown GO Station Area/Mill Street Corridor Secondary Plan?

3. Are the Applications consistent with the intent of a MTSA and/or a PMTSA?

Region of Halton Official Plan (“Halton ROP”)

1. Do the Applications conform with the Halton ROP, including sections 58, 61, 143(9-12), 144, 145 and 147 (17 and 18)?

General Land Use Planning Issues

1. Do the Applications represent good planning?

2. Are the Applications in the public interest?

3. Do the Applications provide for an efficient mixed residential and commercial land use layout? Is there a sufficient amount of commercial land proposed to meet the intent of the Town’s Official Plan policies and the needs of future residents and the surrounding area?

4. Do the Applications provide for an appropriate residential density?

5. Is the Proposed ZBA appropriate and in conformance with Town standards?

6. Should additional residential dwelling height and FSI, and the resulting density as set out in the Proposed OPA be permitted?

7. Do the Applications provide for an appropriate and supportive framework of public facilities?

8. Does the scale of the proposed development and number of intended units warrant the need for additional community space to serve the development and surrounding community?

9. Do the Applications appropriately address the streetscape, public realm and proper integration into the existing community fabric?

10. Do the Applications incorporate appropriate climate change and sustainability measures formerly addressed in the Town’s Green Development Standards?

11. Do the Applications propose to develop the Mountainview Road North and River Drive intersection as a gateway plaza, including retail frontage, grading, built form, terracing, landscaping, and accessible connections to sidewalks?

12. What are the appropriate conditions of draft approval for the Draft Plan of Subdivision?

Transportation, traffic operations, access design and site circulation

1. Do the Applications demonstrate the feasibility of the Street A cross section, including any lay by parking concept on the south side, and provide an appropriate assessment of its operational impact and effect on parking supply?

2. Do the Applications demonstrate safe ingress and egress at the Street A and River Drive intersection, including turning movements, sightlines, daylight triangles, and compliance with minimum curb radii?

3. Do the Applications adequately address the correct classification of River Drive west of Mountainview Road North and demonstrate that road design and analysis assumptions align with that classification?

4. Do the Applications provide a capacity analysis that adequately addresses existing conditions and future total conditions, and identifies mitigation measures in a phased and horizon year format with a clear schedule of improvements and timing?

5. Do the Applications demonstrate that the circular driveway serving the Towers A, B, and C components support safe pedestrian access, minimizes conflict points and avoid hazardous vehicle entrance movements?

6. Do the Applications provide a transit supportive plan that identifies transit stop locations, dedicated pedestrian routes to transit, connection to existing active transportation infrastructure, and supporting amenities?

7. Do internal sidewalks comply with Town requirements, including minimum width, depressed curbs, and tactile plates, and are pedestrian crossings clearly identified on plans?

8. Do the Applications provide for adequate parking for visitors and retail uses?

9. Do the Applications appropriately address traffic management risks associated with left hand turns on the incline on Mountainview Road, including mitigation where warranted?

10. Do the Applications demonstrate a safe dedicated auxiliary lane off River Drive to Street “A”?

11. Do the Applications maintain the existing lane configuration at the intersection of Mountainview Road and River Drive, and will an intersection functional design be provided to demonstrate how the future lane configuration can be accommodated at this intersection?

Community Impacts

1. Do the Applications demonstrate that building heights descend appropriately from the railway corridor to mitigate shadow impacts on nearby low rise residential lots, and that shadowing impacts on nearby outdoor amenity areas are acceptable or mitigated?

2. Do the Applications demonstrate that existing infrastructure and community services can support the proposed development, including roads, essential services, and public amenities, and identified required upgrades where needed?

3. Do the Applications have appropriate regard for the nearby residential community including massing, tower separation, podium heights, tower stepbacks and overall setbacks in order to protect the public realm and minimize impacts on the adjacent low density residential area?

4. Is the scale, design, architectural treatment and overall size of the above grade parking structure appropriate for the site?

5. Do the Applications propose an appropriate approach to offset or mitigate woodland removals associated with the proposal?

6. Has adequate Indigenous consultation been carried out for the Applications?

Servicing and infrastructure

1. Does the Functional Servicing Report include sufficient supporting materials to confirm feasibility and compliance with Town standards, including preliminary plan and profile drawings for the proposed road and servicing?

2. Do the Applications demonstrate that the proposed intersection at River Drive provides appropriate daylight triangles in accordance with Town standards?

3. Do the Applications appropriately address the condition and implications of existing infrastructure relevant to the proposal, including the 525 mm PVC lateral pipe, and demonstrate that the proposed design appropriately interfaces with existing systems?

4. Does the Functional Servicing Report appropriately address water balance requirements across the site and within private blocks?

Stormwater Management

1. Do the Applications appropriately address stormwater management design for the proposed public road allowance and public lands?

2. Do the Applications appropriately address stormwater management design for the private development lands?

3. Do the Applications sufficiently address stormwater management for the Privately Owned Public Spaces (“POPS”), including grading, drainage, and long-term maintenance?

4. Has the Town’s stormwater management template identified in the materials, including the Summary-of-the-SWM-Facility worksheet, been completed in accordance with Town standards and aligned with the submitted design?

Parkland and open space

1. Do the Applications present options for massing, future road networks, pedestrian and cycling connections, and public space across the identified parcels including 130 Mountainview Road, 11 15 17 River Road, 1 2 3 Rosetta Street, and Saint Michaels Street?

2. Do the Applications demonstrate safe, convenient, and seamless access to the GO Station and identify whether access can be provided from the new internal road rather than only from the periphery?

3. Do the Applications provide for an interconnection of 2 Rosetta Street and 130 Mountainview Road via vehicular and pedestrian routes?

4. Do the Applications demonstrate a seamless build out between 130 Mountainview Road and 2 Rosetta Street without a physical barrier separating the properties?

5. Are the POPS appropriately designed in both size and configuration?

Noise/Vibration

1. Are the design and setbacks from the rail corridor appropriate? Do the design and setbacks from the rail corridor meet all requirements of the railroad companies noise/vibration and crash wall design? Are the proposed environmental easements appropriate?

Environmental Contamination

1. Have the Applications provided sufficient and appropriate studies in order to determine whether the proposed development will meet the applicable regulatory standards for the conversion of former industrial lands to a residential use?

Groundwater

1. Do the Applications have long-term implications on the supply of groundwater, and if so, have appropriate mitigation measures been proposed to minimize any impacts to the long-term supply of groundwater?

Region of Halton

1. Do the Applications adequately address issues raised by the Region of Halton in its comment letter dated May 16, 2025?

2. Can the development proposal be serviced with water and wastewater services to the required standards and have the Functional Servicing Report and supporting technical work been completed to the Region’s satisfaction to support the provision of services and the approval of the development proposal?

3. Has appropriate modelling and analysis been undertaken to show the potential impacts of the development proposal to Regional infrastructure?

4. Is the appellant willing to be responsible for the full costs associated with any upgrades required to Regional infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development?

5. Does the development proposal have allocated water and sewage capacity, and if not, are there appropriate planning mechanisms in place to permit the approval of the development proposal?

6. Has sufficient information been provided as part of the Well Survey and Monitoring Report that addresses the requirements of Appendix A or the Region’s Urban Services Guidelines? Is the appellant willing to enter into an agreement with the Region of Halton to ensure well monitoring occurs and to ensure that any well complaints are addressed satisfactorily, including providing well restoration/redevelopment of water supplies for residents, if deemed necessary by the Region of Halton?

7. How will the development proposal meet the policies of the provincial CTC Source Protection Plan? Has the appropriate study/analysis been undertaken to determine groundwater levels for the subject property, if an EASR is required for construction activities, a PTTW for long-term dewatering during and/or post construction, to ensure there are no negative impacts to the Region of Halton municipal groundwater supply wells and to ensure any dewatering discharge is not directed to the Region’s sanitary sewer system?

8. Have the appropriate Environmental Site Assessment studies been undertaken in accordance with O.Reg. 153/04 standards required for the applicant to obtain a Record of Site Condition to confirm the extent or delineation of any contaminants to ensure the development of this property can occur without any negative impacts to the Region of Halton municipal groundwater supply wells (shown to meet applicable potable Site Condition Standards (SCS))?

9. Is the appellant willing to supply any proposed commercial units with private waste collection?

10. Has sufficient information been provided to show how the proposed development can receive municipal waste collection for the residential component of the development, in conformity with the direction of the Region of Halton Development Design Guidelines for Source Separation of Solid Waste?

11. Have appropriate Holding Provisions been included in the draft Zoning By-law to address proposed phasing in relation to the availability of servicing capacity for each phase of the development?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc.

2. The Town of Halton Hills

3. Gilbach (Georgetown) Inc. in Reply (if any)