Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
March 26, 2026
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-25-000667
OLT-25-000679
OLT-25-000879
OLT-25-000943
OLT-25-000958
OLT-25-000949
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Elora Sands Development Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit a settlement area boundary expansion and redesignate the Subject Site for urban uses
Reference Number:
OP003-2025
Property Address:
6574 Gerrie Road and 7581 Nichol Road 15
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000667
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000667
OLT Case Name:
Elora Sands Development Inc. v. Centre Wellington (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Elora Sands Development Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit a settlement area boundary expansion and redesignate the Subject Site for urban uses
Reference Number:
OP-2025-06
Property Address:
6574 Gerrie Road and 7581 Nichol Road 15
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000679
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000679
OLT Case Name:
Elora Sands Development Inc. v. Wellington (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment No. OP002-2025
Description:
To permit a compact development of low and medium density residential uses within the Fergus settlement area
Reference Number:
OP002-2025
Property Address:
6586 Beatty Line; Lot 17, Concession 14
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000879
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000879
OLT Case Name:
Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc v. Centre Wellington (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment No. OP002-2025
Description:
To permit a compact development of low and medium density residential uses within the Fergus settlement area
Reference Number:
OP-2025-05
Property Address:
6586 Beatty Line; Lot 17, Concession 14
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000900
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000879
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Ltd.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To expand the existing settlement area of Fergus to facilitate the development of the Subject Lands
Reference Number:
OP006-2025
Property Address:
6704 & 6684-6688 Beatty Line North and 7692 Sideroad 15 and 7715 Sideroad 15
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000943
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000943
OLT Case Name:
Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Ltd. v. Centre Wellington (Township)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Ltd.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To expand the existing settlement area of Fergus to facilitate the development of the Subject Lands
Reference Number:
OP-2025-08
Property Address:
6704 & 6684-6688 Beatty Line North and 7692 Sideroad 15 and 7715 Sideroad 15
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000958
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000958
OLT Case Name:
Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Ltd. v. Wellington (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Polocorp Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To establish a mix of low and medium density residential dwellings
Reference Number:
OP-2025-07
Property Address:
6581 Highway 6
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000949
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000949
OLT Case Name:
Polocorp Inc. v. Wellington (County)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Polocorp Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To establish a mix of low and medium density residential dwellings
Reference Number:
23T-25004
Property Address:
6581 Highway 6
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000952
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000949
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Polocorp Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To establish a mix of low and medium density residential dwellings
Reference Number:
OP005-2025
Property Address:
6581 Highway 6
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000955
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000949
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Polocorp Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description:
To establish a mix of low and medium density residential dwellings
Reference Number:
RZ004-2025
Property Address:
6581 Highway 6
Municipality/UT:
Centre Wellington/Wellington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-25-000959
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-25-000949
Heard:
March 16, 2026 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Township of Centre Wellington
Peter Pickfield
County of Wellington
David Bronskill Cristin Hunt (in absentia)
Elora Sands Developments Inc.
Daniel Angelucci Ira Kagan (in absentia) Sarah Kagan (in absentia)
Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc.
Scott Snider Anna Toumanians
Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Limited
Chris Barnett Evan Barz (in absentia)
Polocorp Inc.
Steven O’Melia Ana Cvijanovic (Student-at-law)
1052367 Ontario Ltd.
Lee English Pitman Paterson (in absentia)
Breymark Homes Fergus Inc.
Kim Mullin Sean Ovas (in absentia)
Upper Grand District School Board
Brad Teichman Daniel Teichman
DECISION DELIVERED BY David Brown ON March 16, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to four distinct cases that each relate to the proposed expansion of the urban centre boundary, specifically the Fergus Urban Centre (“FUC”), in the Township of Centre Wellington (“Township”). The Tribunal is hearing the matters together at this CMC for administrative efficiencies in the organization of the Appeals.
2Elora Sands Development Inc. (“Elora Sands”) filed Applications to amend the County of Wellington (“County”) Official Plan (“COP”) and the Township Official Plan (“TOP”). The Elora Sands Applications seek to expand the FUC urban boundary area to include lands located at 6574 Gerrie Road and 7581 Nichol Road 15 (“Elora Sands Lands”). It is proposed to redesignate the Elora Sands Lands to permit future residential development. Elora Sands has appealed the Applications pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.1990 c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”) as the Township and the County had not made a decision on the Applications within the timeframes prescribed in the Planning Act.
3Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc. (“Sorbara”) filed Applications to amend the COP and the TOP. The Applications seek to expand the FUC urban boundary area to include the located at 6586 Beatty Line North (“Sorbara Lands”). It is proposed to redesignate the Sorbara Lands to permit future residential development. Sorbara has appealed the Applications pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, as the Township and the County had not made a decision on the Applications within the timeframes prescribed in the Planning Act.
4Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Limited (“Tribute”) filed Applications to amend the COP and the TOP. The Applications seek to expand the FUC urban boundary area to include the located at 6704 and 6684-6688 Beatty Line, 7692 Sideroad 15, and 7715 Sideroad 15 (“Tribute Lands”). It is proposed to redesignate the Tribute Lands to permit future residential development. Tribute has appealed the Applications pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, as the Township and the County had not made a decision on the Applications within the timeframes prescribed in the Planning Act.
5Polocorp Inc. (“Polocorp”) filed Applications to amend the COP, amend the TOP, an application to amend the Township Zoning By-law and an application for approval of a Plan of Subdivision. The Applications seek to expand the FUC urban boundary area to include the lands located at 6581 Highway 6 (“Polocorp Lands”). It is proposed to redesignate and rezone the Polocorp Lands to permit future residential development. Polocorp has appealed the Applications pursuant to s. 22(7), 34(11), and 51(34) of the Planning Act, as the Township and the County had not made a decision on the Applications within the timeframes prescribed in the Planning Act.
6The Tribunal has conducted a CMC for Elora Sands and Sorbara at which Hearings, the Parties agreed that convening a single CMC would be an efficient use of the Tribunal’s resources as the Parties have similar interests as it pertains to the expansion of the FUC urban boundary. The CMC was convened accordingly, and Affidavits of Service were filed by Tribute and Polocorp confirming that Notice of these proceedings was provided in accordance with the directions provided by the Tribunal.
HEARING ORGANIZATION
7Counsel for Elora Sands, Sorbara, Tribute, and Polocorp (together the “Four Appellants”) advised that they have been in discussions with the Town and the County and have agreed that phasing the consideration of the Appeals before the Tribunal would be appropriate.
8It is proposed that Phase 1 will address the overarching issues of population forecasts and the lands need assessment. Phase 2 would address the specific issues of the Four Appellants once the Phase 1 issues have been determined by the Tribunal. Counsel explained that the Issues for Phase 2 can not be properly identified until after the Phase 1 Issues have been adjudicated by the Tribunal. It was noted that the decision arising from the Phase 1 proceedings will not determine the merits of any specific appeal as that the Phase 1 decision will be focussed on the determination of the land needs in the Township and the County.
9Counsel advised the Tribunal that they are in agreement to accept the decision of the Tribunal with respect to the Phase 1 matter as final for the purposes of moving forward with the Phase 2 proceedings.
10The Tribunal, in consideration of the commonality between the four appeals in the context of Phase 1, finds that hearing the matters together pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure is appropriate to ensure that the Phase 1 Issues are determined in a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.
11The Tribunal’s shall revisit this Direction at the future CMC prior to the commencement of the Phase 2 Hearing to determine whether it is still appropriate to hear the matters together.
PARTY STATUS REQUESTS
12The Tribunal received “reciprocal” requests for Party Status from the Four Appellants seeking Party status in each others respective Appeals. Counsel indicated no objections to the granting of the “reciprocal” status requests.
13The Tribunal reviewed the individual Party Status requests and finds that the Four Appellants have an interest in the respective appeals as the outcome of the future FUC urban boundary limit will have a direct and real impact on their respective holdings. The participation of the Four Appellants in each of the appeals will enable the Tribunal to adjudicate the Appeals effectively in the broader planning context and in a manner that does not prejudice any Party in its consideration of the boundary expansion request. The Tribunal grants the “reciprocal” requests for Party Status.
141052367 Ontario Ltd. (“1052367”) filed a request for Party Status in each of the four appeals. In the request, Lee English, Counsel for 1052367, explained that the lands owned or controlled by 1052367 border the FUC urban boundary located between the Polocorp Lands and the Sorbara Lands. 1052367 is currently in pre-consultation with the Township and the County regarding the submission of applications to amend the COP and the TOP to facilitate the expansion of the urban boundary and to redesignate its lands for future residential development. The interests of 1052367 are shared with the Four Appellants and Mr. English submits that 1052367 has a direct interest in the matters before the Tribunal.
15The Tribunal received no opposition to the request as it pertains to the matters to be addressed in Phase 1. It was suggested that the request for Party Status in Phase 2 be considered after the conclusion of the Phase 1 proceedings.
16The Tribunal finds that the 1052367 has a direct interest in the proceedings as it owns lands immediately abutting the FUC urban boundary between two of the Appellants and the lands immediately abutting the 1052367 Lands within the FUC urban boundary appear to have been developed in anticipation of the future development of the 1052367 Lands.
17With respect to the request to only grant Party Status in Phase 1, the Tribunal finds that the interests of 1052367 extend beyond the Phase 1 matters and their participation in the proceedings will enable the Tribunal to effectively and completely adjudicate this matter.
18The Tribunal grants the 1052367 request for Party Status.
19The Upper Grand District School Board (“UGDSB”) submitted a request for Party Status in the Polocorp Appeal. Brad Teichman, Counsel to the UGDSB, explained that Polocorp is developing adjacent lands to the Polocorp Lands in this proceeding which contain a portion of a future school site. The balance of the school site is located on the Polocorp Lands and as such the UGDSB has a real interest in the Polocorp Appeal. Mr. Teichman advised that the UGDSB interests are in the anticipated Phase 2 proceedings and not those matters to considered in the Phase 1 proceedings proposed by the Four Appellants.
20Steven O’Melia, legal counsel for Polocorp, confirmed that Polocorp has no objections to the request.
21The Tribunal grants the UGDSB’s request for Party Status.
22Breymark Homes Fergus Inc. (“Breymark”) submitted a Party Status request for the Polocorp Appeals. Breymark owns abutting lands to the east of the Polocorp Lands and have been in discussions with Polocorp since 2022 concerning the future development of the Breymark lands to ensure considerations for road access and servicing of their lands. Further, Breymark has been participating in discussions with the County about the inclusion of its lands in the Municipal Comprehensive Review and within an expanded urban boundary.
23The Tribunal, having considered the Breymark request, grants the Breymark request for Party Status.
24The Tribunal addressed the request for Party Status received from Suraj Saini and note that the interest expressed by Mr. Saini was very specific to the impact of the Sorbara Appeals on his property. The Tribunal deferred the consideration of the request to the future CMC and directed that Mr. Saini and Scott Snider, Counsel for Sorbara, should have discussions about the interests of Mr. Saini in advance of the future CMC so as to narrow the scope of his issue(s) or potentially resolve them.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
25A draft Procedural Order (“PO”) was submitted to the Tribunal in advance of the CMC. The draft PO is intended to cover the matters of a Phase 1 hearing and included an Issues List (“IL”). Counsel for the Four Appellants and 1052367 confirmed that they have reviewed the IL and are in agreement that the IL is appropriate for the Phase 1 Hearing.
26The Parties submitted the final PO after the conclusion of the CMC and the Tribunal has attached the PO for Phase 1 to this Decision at ATTACHMENT 1 and directs that the PO for Phase 1 shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Phase 1 Hearing.
PHASE 1 HEARING
27Counsel submitted that a three-week hearing would be required for the Phase 1 hearing.
28The Tribunal scheduled a 14-day hearing for the consideration of the merits of the Appeal to be held commencing on Monday, October 26, 2026, at 10 a.m. through to Friday, November 13, 2026, by video hearing. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Wednesday, November 11, 2026.
29Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers 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://meet.goto.com/943363669
Access code: 943-363-669
30Parties and/or Participants 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
31Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1 888 299 1889. The access code is: 943-363-669.
32Individuals 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.
33As 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.
PHASE 2 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
34The Tribunal was requested to set aside a block of time in the calendar for the Phase 2 Hearing.
35The Tribunal finds that it is premature to set a hearing date for Phase 2 at this time as the determination of the Phase 1 proceedings is necessary for the determination of the issues that will arise with respect to the specific appeals and which will determine the length of the hearing required.
36The Tribunal expects that once the Phase 1 matter is settled and the Township and the County have had the opportunity to determine an IL for Phase 2, a hearing date and duration might then be determined.
37The Tribunal schedules a further CMC to consider the organization of the Phase 2 Hearing and review a draft PO for Phase 2 together with a draft IL.
38The Tribunal schedules a one-day CMC for the organization of the Phase 2 Hearing to be held on Tuesday, June 15, 2027, at 10 a.m. by video hearing.
39Parties and/or Participants and/or Observers 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/656004293
Access code: 656-004-293
40Parties and/or Participants 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
41Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 656-004-293.
42Individuals 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.
43As 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.
MEDIATION
44The Tribunal acknowledges that the Parties have been in conversation with respect to the organization of the Hearing of the Appeals and have determined that a Phasing approach is appropriate.
45The Tribunal recommends that once the Phase 1 Hearing Decision has been issued and the Parties have commenced negotiations to determine the matters at issue in the individual Appeals there may be an opportunity for mediation, however it is too early in this process for mediation considerations.
ORDER
46THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the following are granted Party Status in the following OLT Case Nos. as set out below:
A. OLT Case Nos.: OLT-25-000667 and OLT-25-000679
i. Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc.
ii. Polocorp Inc.
iii. Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Ltd.
iv. 1052367 Ontario Ltd.
B. OLT Case Nos.: OLT-25-000879 and OLT-25-000900
i. Elora Sands Development Inc.
ii. Polocorp Inc.
iii. Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Ltd.
iv. 1052367 Ontario Ltd.
C. OLT Case Nos.: OLT-25-000943 and OLT-25-000958
i. Elora Sands Development Inc.
ii. Polocorp Inc.
iii. Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc.
iv. 1052367 Ontario Ltd.
D. OLT Case Nos.: OLT-25-000949, OLT-25-000955, OLT-25-000959, and
OLT-25-000952
i. Elora Sands Development Inc.
ii. Sorbara/Tribute Brubacher Holdings Inc.
iii. Tribute (Fergus Oaks) Ltd.
iv. 1052367 Ontario Ltd.
v. Upper Grand District School Board
vi. Breymark Fergus Homes Ltd.
47THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT a 14-day hearing for Phase 1 of the Hearing shall commence Monday, October 26, 2026 at 10 a.m. through to Friday, November 13, 2026 by video hearing as set out in paragraphs [28] through [33] of this Order. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Wednesday, November 11, 2026
48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT a one-day Case Management Conference for the organization of the Phase 2 Hearing shall be conducted on Tuesday, June 15, 2027, at 10 a.m. by video hearing as set out in paragraphs [38] through [43] of this Order
49The Procedural Order attached at ATTACHMENT 1 to this Order shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the hearing.
50There will be no further notice provided for these proceedings.
51The Member is not seized, but may be available for further case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
“David Brown”
DAVID BROWN
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.
ATTACHMENT 1