Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 12, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000934, OLT-25-000940
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 2825085 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To facilitate the development of 25 residential units.
Reference Number: PE 24-01
Property Address: 12 and 20 Cobalt Street S
Municipality/UT: Perth East/Perth
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000934
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000934
OLT Case Name: 2825085 Ontario Inc. v. Perth (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 2825085 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To facilitate the development of 25 residential units.
Reference Number: Z13-2024
Property Address: 12 and 20 Cobalt Street S
Municipality/UT: Perth East/Perth
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000940
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000940
OLT Case Name: 2825085 Ontario Inc. v. Perth East (Township)
Heard: February 27, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Agent*
2825085 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant” / “Applicant”)
Jessica De Marinis
Township of Perth East (“Township”)
Ashley Carter*
Perth County (“County”)
No one appeared
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON February 27, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) respecting Appeals by 2825085 Ontario Inc. The Appeals arise following a non-decision by the County regarding applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (OLT-25-000940) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (OLT-25-000934) to facilitate the development of 25 residential units at 12 and 20 Cobalt Street. The two Appeals have not been ordered to be heard at the same time but were nevertheless dealt with together at the CMC.
Attendance and representation of the parTies
2There was no issue with the attendance or representation of the Appellant. The representative of the Township was a staff member who performed well and assisted the Tribunal in every way she was capable of; however, she was prepared with little directions from her employer. When asked if the Township intended to participate in the proceedings, she indicated that counsel had not been retained and a decision on retaining counsel and / or participating in the proceedings would be decided later. She was not provided with any other instructions.
3No one attended the Hearing on behalf of the County, and the County had not sent clear directions to the Tribunal in advance of the CMC concerning their attendance or expected participation in the proceedings. At the request of the presiding Member, the Case-coordinator attempted to contact the County during the hearing to confirm whether it was going to attend the CMC and whether it planned to participate in the proceedings. Eventually, the County confirmed that it would not be attending the CMC but provided no direction regarding ongoing participation in the matter.
4After waiting the requisite time under Rule 3.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to begin the Hearing without all of the Parties being present (having not yet heard that the County would not be attending the CMC), the Tribunal commenced the CMC.
Service of Notice of CMC
5No issue was raised concerning Notice of this CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service regarding the Notice and marked it as Exhibit 1. No further Notice is required.
Requests for Status
6No one attended the CMC seeking either Party or Participant status.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
7Without proper representation by the County and Township, there was no opportunity to discuss mediation or settlement.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
8The Tribunal received and reviewed a draft Procedural Order from the Appellant. The Tribunal notes that the draft Issues List appended to the Procedural Order includes issues for the municipalities. Asked about this, counsel for the Appellant indicated that, out of an abundance of caution, they had included issues that they thought the municipalities might raise and they circulated it with the municipalities. Counsel further confirmed that there was no feedback received.
9On this basis, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has been exceptionally fair with the municipalities, and, thus, the Tribunal considered the draft as presented without submissions from the municipalities.
HEARING
10Setting Hearing dates was also problematic because there was no confirmation regarding whether the matter would be a contested Hearing. As a result, the Tribunal was obliged to assume that it would be contested, to ensure that enough days were scheduled to dispose of the Appeals. With no one available for the municipalities to comment on the time that they will require to call evidence and make submissions, the Tribunal accepted the Appellant’s suggestion that a four-day Merit Hearing would be required. The Tribunal consequently set a four-day Hearing commencing on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at 10 a.m. by video.
POST-CMC position of the municipalities and revised hearing date
11Soon following the CMC, both the County and the Township confirmed that they would not participate in the proceedings. This makes both Appeals uncontested matters and the Tribunal finds that both can be dealt with in a single day without a procedural order (noting that the procedural order presented at the CMC no longer makes any practical sense).
12While there was no formal request to have the matters heard at the same time, the Tribunal finds that it would be prudent to do so.
13At the request of the Appellant, the Tribunal consequently set a one-day Hearing commencing on Thursday, April 2, 2026, at 10 a.m. by video.
14Parties are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/914098901
Access code: 914-098-901
15Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
16Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 914-098-901.
17Individuals 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 event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.
18As 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.
ORDER
19The Tribunal Orders that:
case nos. OLT-25-000940 and OLT-25-000934 shall be heard at the same time; and
the date and particulars of the Hearing is set out above.
20The Member is not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. ANDREWS
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.