Glen Rouge Developments Inc. v. Brampton (City), 2026 CanLII 25155

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 17, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000205

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

Applicant/Appellant: Glen Rouge Developments Inc

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

Description: To facilitate a mixed-use development comprised of 3 high-rise buildings and stacked townhouses

Reference Number: OZS-2023-0010

Property Address: 2036 Bovaird Drive W

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000205

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000205

OLT Case Name: Glen Rouge Developments Inc. v. Brampton (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Glen Rouge Developments Inc

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

Description: To facilitate a mixed-use development comprised of 3 high-rise buildings and stacked townhouses

Reference Number: OZS-2023-0010

Property Address: 2036 Bovaird Drive W

Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel

OLT Case No: OLT-25-000210

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000205

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Glen Rouge Developments Inc.

Motion for: Directions

Heard: February 27, 2026 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Glen Rouge Developments Inc.	R. Cheeseman, S. Fleming
City of Brampton	B. Engell

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was a Notice of Motion brought forth by Glen Rouge Developments Inc. (“Appellant”) requesting that the City of Brampton (“City”) disclose documents pursuant to Rules 9 and 10 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

2The Notice of Motion requested the following:

1. An order requiring the City of Brampton to provide the Report of City Staff regarding the Market and Economic Analysis arising from planning application OZS-202 to the Appellant pursuant to Rule 9.1 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure;
2. A declaration as to whether the Staff Report is privileged;
3. Such further additional relief as counsel may request and this Honourable Tribunal deems just.

EXHIBITS

3The following were marked as Exhibits by the Tribunal:

Exhibit 1 – Appellant’s Notice of Motion consisting of 48 pages;

Exhibit 2 – City’s Responding Motion Record comprising of 35 pages;

Exhibit 3 – Appellant’s Book of Authorities

BACKGROUND

4On April 13, 2023, the Appellant filed an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) which would permit the development of a mixed-use development on the property municipally known as 2036 Bovaird Drive West in the City.

5The applications were brought before the City’s Planning and Development Committee (“Committee”) for review on February 24, 2025. City Staff had completed a Staff Report which was presented to the Committee that recommended the applications be approved.

6The Committee deferred that applications until the second quarter of 2025 for a final decision.

7Due to this non-decision by the City, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal on March 7, 2025.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Appellant

8The Appellant’s Motion for Discovery is pursuant to Rule 9.1 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure. The Appellant seeks the disclosure of a Market and Economic Analysis Report (“Report”) which is an economic analysis for the OPA and ZBA applications pertaining to office space requirements. The Appellant submits that this Report was requested in a public meeting forum and therefore, cannot be a privileged Report.

9The Appellant argued that in the case of Lizotte v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 SCC 52, [2016] 2 SCR 521 at para. 36 that under the Civil Rules, Litigation privilege is a “class privilege” that is intended to facilitate the adversarial process model of adjudication. As such, the Appellant’s submits that the Report is necessary for them to complete its arguments.

10The Appellant continued with its argument that a Report such as this is commonly created at the City and actual litigation (in this case the appeal by the Appellant) had not commenced when the Report was requested. The Appellant argues that even if the Report was created with the prospect of litigation in mind, that is not enough to solely be protected by litigation privilege, citing R. v. Husky Energy Inc., 2017 SKQB 383 (“Husky Energy”) at paragraphs. 25-26.

11The Appellant continued with this argument stating that since the Report was requested during a public meeting and this type of Report would have been prepared by the City Staff on these types of applications, then this Report does not fall under the protection of litigation privilege (again citing Husky Energy at paragraph. 27).

12The Appellant further argued that under Rule 5.5 of Ontario Land Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Municipal Record must include all reports prepared or filed in respect of a decision or non-decision of an application. The Appellant argued that the approved Procedural Order and Issues List contain issues to which this Report may be relevant. Without access to the Report, the Appellant argued, that it cannot complete its case to these specific issues. The Appellant submits that the Report has a dominant purpose to this case and this type of Report is typically created in the course of normal business. As such, the Report in question cannot be considered as privileged for the Appeals before the Tribunal. The Appellant argued that this determination pertaining to the dominant purpose of the Report was clear at paragraphs 13-15 of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decision Canada Southern Petroleum Ltd. v. Amoco Canada Petroleum Co., 1995 CanLII 9236 (AB KB).

Respondent City

13The City submits that the Report was created for the sole purpose of litigation of the appeals. The City’s responding materials included an Affidavit by Steve Ganesh, the Commissioner of Planning, Building and Growth for the City. Mr. Ganesh stated in his Affidavit that there was a proposed motion that the Committee defer a decision on the applications until the completion of a market and economic analysis could be completed. Mr. Ganesh stated that the Committee deferred the applications without any directions to Staff to complete a market and economic analysis report.

14Mr. Ganesh further stated that due to the probability of litigation of the applications, he directed the City’s Economic Development Department to retain a consultant to create the Report should actual litigation commence. As City Staff was in favour of the application, an outside consultant would need to be retained as City Staff would not be able to support the position of the Committee.

15Mr. Ganesh confirmed that the City had received some information pertaining to the Report, however, they were not satisfied with the information provided.

16The City submitted, as a result, that the consultant and Report were produced in anticipation of litigation and therefore protected by litigation privilege. Further, the City advised the Tribunal that they do not intend to rely on this information, nor will they be calling the consultant as a witness at the hearing, and therefore the Report and its contents are irrelevant.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Report was not Part of a Public Meeting

17The Tribunal has reviewed the submissions of the Parties including the authorities presented. As for the Appellant’s argument that the Report was requested as a part of a public meeting process, the Tribunal has reviewed the submitted materials, including the minutes of the City’s Planning and Development Committee meeting of February 24, 2025. These minutes confirm that City Staff recommended the applications for approval. The minutes do reflect that Councillor Palleschi recommended that the applications be deferred until staff could complete a market and economic analysis, however, the only confirmed direction given was to defer the applications until a future Committee meeting by the end of Q2 2025. The minutes indicate that no direction was given to staff in a public forum to have City Staff complete a market and economic analysis pertaining to the applications.

18Therefore, the Tribunal does not agree with the Appellant that the requested Report was made in a public forum. Contemplation of a Report and giving direction to Staff to create the Report are not the same. If the Committee had given direction to Staff to create the Report, then those directions would have been noted in the Committee minutes. No such direction was given. Once again, the only directions that were given were to receive the information provided by the Appellants and to defer a decision on the applications until sometime in Q2 2025. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has received all the City’s relevant reports pertaining to the applications.

19Moreover, Mr. Ganesh’s Affidavit is consistent with the minutes as he stated that he alone made the request to have an outside consultant create the Report. Mr. Ganesh’s direction was not made in a public forum, nor at the direction of Council. Mr. Ganesh stated in his Affidavit that since City Staff was in support of the applications, City Staff could not be directly involved with any reports to the contrary to the position of Staff, therefore, only an outside consultant could be contemplated to write the Report in question.

The Report is Protected by Litigation Privilege

20Mr. Ganesh stated that the Report was created in anticipation of litigation or appeals to the Tribunal due to the deferment by the Committee on the applications. The City confirms that it has received some information from the retained consultant and was not satisfied with the information provided.

21The Tribunal finds that even though the litigation had not commenced at the time of the ordering of the Report, litigation privilege extends beyond the commencement of litigation, so long as the document or communication was created in contemplation of litigation. In this instance, at the time of the ordering of the Report, litigation had not commenced, however, this does not mean that the matter is not privileged. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Report was created in anticipation of litigation. Further, the City has demonstrated to the Tribunal that this Report was created for the dominant purpose of litigation. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that in this matter, the Report meets the threshold of litigation privilege and is protected from disclosure.

The Report is Neither Necessary nor Relevant

22The Appellant claims that the Report is relevant to Issues 17-19 of the Procedural Order. The Tribunal has confirmed with the Parties that the Appellant will be the only Party that will produce an expert witness to speak to these issues, and that the City will not be producing any materials or expert witnesses to argue these issues.

23The Tribunal confirms that each of the Parties had submitted their witness list as per the deadlines of the agreed upon and approved Procedural Order. The Tribunal confirms that the Appellant is providing the only expert witness that will speak to the office space requirements, which are Issues 17-19 in the Procedural Order. The requested Report by the Appellant was to speak to these same issues. The Tribunal confirmed that the City is presenting one witness only, an outside land planning consultant, who will be speaking to only the land planning issues, and will not be speaking to the subject of the market and economic analysis Report.

24Therefore, even if the findings of the Report being privileged were an error by the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that under Rule 1.4 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, that issues 17-19 of the Issues List – to which the City’s Report would be used by the Appellant – will only be argued by the Appellant’s expert witness and their submitted evidence, and that the production of the City’s Report will not provide the Tribunal with any further evidence to help it finalize its decision on these particular issues.

25Therefore, based on the Tribunal’s findings, the Tribunal finds that the Motion for Discovery brought before it should be dismissed.

ORDER

26The Tribunal orders that the Motion for Discovery is denied.

“S. deBoer”

S. deBOER

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.